High Court

1. Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5- MNNIT.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking a direction upon respondents to refix/revise the pension payable to the petitioner who retired on the post of Professor at MNNIT on 11.03.1998. Petitioner having retired prior to year 2006, he relies on O.M. dated 6.4.2016 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel PG and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare. Thus, petitioner claims entitlement to pension not less than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band that was last applicable to the petitioner.

3. Presently, vide communication dated 20.8.2019 issued by MNNIT, the claim of the petitioner has been placed in abeyance pending decision by the Government of India. As to the decision of the Government of India, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the letter dated 20.8.2019 was issued with respect to two similar claims made by the petitioner and one Dr. Y.P. Gupta, who had also retired from MNNIT prior to the year 2006. Dr. Y.P. Gupta, claiming similar relief, had earlier filed Writ-A No.1715 of 2020,which was disposed of vide order dated 3.2.2020 with the following direction:- "In view of the fact that a limited request has been made by means of the present writ petition for issuance of direction to the respondent No.1 to pass appropriate order on the pending request made by respondent Nos.3 to 5, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the recommendation made by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and pass appropriate reasoned speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

4. In compliance of that direction, the Government of India, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, T.S. III Section vide order dated 3.11.2020 has provided as under:-

5. Now, MNNIT Allahabad is requested to take further action for extension of benefits of OM NO.38/37/06-P&PW(A) dated 06.04.2016 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare to Dr. Yash Pal Gupta, the petitioner in the present case, on immediate basis."

5. Upon specific query made, learned counsel for the MNNIT has submitted that revised pension was granted to Dr. Y.P. Gupta and Dr. Ramashish Yadav in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court. Since there is no such direction exists in the case of the petitioner, therefore, the same benefit was not given to the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it does appear that the claim of the petitioner is exactly similar to the claim made by Dr. Y.P. Gupta. Both retired from MNNIT and claimed revision of pension in light of O.M. dated 6.4.2016 issued by the Government of India. At the time of retirement, full pension entitlement was declined to these persons arising from less than 33 years of service rendered by them. That being the requirement of statutory Rule No.49 to claim full pension, they were paid lesser pension computed in accordance with the Rules. Later, upon issuance of O.M. No.1.9.2008 that pension came to be revised to not less than 50% of the minimum of pay in the relevant pay band. That benefit was withdrawn under subsequent O.M. dated 20.1.2013. Still later, upon issuance of O.M. dated 6.4.2016, benefit granted to the petitioner under O.M. dated 1.9.2008 should have been restored as the condition of 33 years of service was made applicable to pensioners from 2007 onwards.

7. That being the background of facts and law, this Court (in the case of Dr. Y.P. Gupta) directed the Ministry to take appropriate decision with respect to the claim made by that petitioner-that he was entitled to pension not less than 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band applied to him. No positive direction was issued by this Court to pay any particular amount to Dr. Y.P. Gupta. That decision was left to be made by the Government of India.

8. In compliance of such direction issued, the Government of India appears to have taken a considered decision to grant the benefit of O.M. dated 1.9.2008. Thus, Dr. Y.P. Gupta became entitled to revision of pension to not less than 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band availed by him.

9. That decision of the Government of India has not been reached in the individual/peculiar facts of that case. Perusal of the communication dated 3.11.2020 leaves no doubt that the decision though occasioned by the earlier decision of this Court to decide the representation made by Dr. Y.P. Gupta had arisen upon contempt proceedings being initiated, the decision made (on merits), is not relatable either to the direction issued in the writ petition on the contempt proceedings. Those directions were issued by this Court only to require the Government of India to take a stand. It was a direction to take proper stand. Therefore, the merit decision made by the Government of India is found equally applicable to the case of the present petitioner, in absence of any distinguishing facts shown to be existing.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction upon respondent no.4 to pass appropriate order to consider similarity of facts claimed by the petitioner with that of Dr. Y.P. Gupta. Unless any distinguishing fact exists, the petitioner would remain entitled to same relief as was granted to Dr. Y.P. Gupta. In that case, the revision of pension to the petitioner shall be computed by the authorities concerned as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months and the balance of revised pension will be made within a period of next one month. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Radhika (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5- MNNIT.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking a direction upon respondents to refix/revise the pension payable to the petitioner who retired on the post of Professor at MNNIT on 11.03.1998. Petitioner having retired prior to year 2006, he relies on O.M. dated 6.4.2016 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel PG and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare. Thus, petitioner claims entitlement to pension not less than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band that was last applicable to the petitioner.

3. Presently, vide communication dated 20.8.2019 issued by MNNIT, the claim of the petitioner has been placed in abeyance pending decision by the Government of India. As to the decision of the Government of India, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the letter dated 20.8.2019 was issued with respect to two similar claims made by the petitioner and one Dr. Y.P. Gupta, who had also retired from MNNIT prior to the year 2006. Dr. Y.P. Gupta, claiming similar relief, had earlier filed Writ-A No.1715 of 2020,which was disposed of vide order dated 3.2.2020 with the following direction:- "In view of the fact that a limited request has been made by means of the present writ petition for issuance of direction to the respondent No.1 to pass appropriate order on the pending request made by respondent Nos.3 to 5, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the recommendation made by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and pass appropriate reasoned speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

4. In compliance of that direction, the Government of India, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, T.S. III Section vide order dated 3.11.2020 has provided as under:-

5. Now, MNNIT Allahabad is requested to take further action for extension of benefits of OM NO.38/37/06-P&PW(A) dated 06.04.2016 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare to Dr. Yash Pal Gupta, the petitioner in the present case, on immediate basis."

5. Upon specific query made, learned counsel for the MNNIT has submitted that revised pension was granted to Dr. Y.P. Gupta and Dr. Ramashish Yadav in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court. Since there is no such direction exists in the case of the petitioner, therefore, the same benefit was not given to the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it does appear that the claim of the petitioner is exactly similar to the claim made by Dr. Y.P. Gupta. Both retired from MNNIT and claimed revision of pension in light of O.M. dated 6.4.2016 issued by the Government of India. At the time of retirement, full pension entitlement was declined to these persons arising from less than 33 years of service rendered by them. That being the requirement of statutory Rule No.49 to claim full pension, they were paid lesser pension computed in accordance with the Rules. Later, upon issuance of O.M. No.1.9.2008 that pension came to be revised to not less than 50% of the minimum of pay in the relevant pay band. That benefit was withdrawn under subsequent O.M. dated 20.1.2013. Still later, upon issuance of O.M. dated 6.4.2016, benefit granted to the petitioner under O.M. dated 1.9.2008 should have been restored as the condition of 33 years of service was made applicable to pensioners from 2007 onwards.

7. That being the background of facts and law, this Court (in the case of Dr. Y.P. Gupta) directed the Ministry to take appropriate decision with respect to the claim made by that petitioner-that he was entitled to pension not less than 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band applied to him. No positive direction was issued by this Court to pay any particular amount to Dr. Y.P. Gupta. That decision was left to be made by the Government of India.

8. In compliance of such direction issued, the Government of India appears to have taken a considered decision to grant the benefit of O.M. dated 1.9.2008. Thus, Dr. Y.P. Gupta became entitled to revision of pension to not less than 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band availed by him.

9. That decision of the Government of India has not been reached in the individual/peculiar facts of that case. Perusal of the communication dated 3.11.2020 leaves no doubt that the decision though occasioned by the earlier decision of this Court to decide the representation made by Dr. Y.P. Gupta had arisen upon contempt proceedings being initiated, the decision made (on merits), is not relatable either to the direction issued in the writ petition on the contempt proceedings. Those directions were issued by this Court only to require the Government of India to take a stand. It was a direction to take proper stand. Therefore, the merit decision made by the Government of India is found equally applicable to the case of the present petitioner, in absence of any distinguishing facts shown to be existing.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction upon respondent no.4 to pass appropriate order to consider similarity of facts claimed by the petitioner with that of Dr. Y.P. Gupta. Unless any distinguishing fact exists, the petitioner would remain entitled to same relief as was granted to Dr. Y.P. Gupta. In that case, the revision of pension to the petitioner shall be computed by the authorities concerned as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months and the balance of revised pension will be made within a period of next one month. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Radhika (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)