DR. M.C. PANDEY vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8270/2017, CM APPLs. 34041/2017 & 29348/2018 DR. M.C. PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudeep Singh and Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Sangeeta Rai, Sr. PC for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 28.04.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The petitioner retired from the Indo-Tibetan Border Police1 in 1999. On the basis of the pay scale of ₹12,000-375-16,500/-, which was being drawn by him at that time, he was sanctioned pension @ ₹8,523/- w.e.f. 1 November 1999. We deem it appropriate to provide a screen shot of the Pension Payment Order2 issued by the respondents thus: 1 “ITBP”, hereinafter 2 “PPO”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 8270/2017 Page 1 of 10 KUMAR Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:36:31 2. Subsequently, in 2006, consequent on the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the petitioner’s pension was revised to ₹20,955/-. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 8270/2017 Page 2 of 10 KUMAR Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:36:31 3. The petitioner continued to be paid the revised pension till 2016. In 2016, the respondents claim to have realised that, while re- fixing his pension in 2006, the petitioner’s pay scale have been erroneously fixed, by treating his pay scale as ₹14,300-400-18,300/- instead of ₹12,000-375-16,500/-. Accordingly, a decision was taken to downwardly revise the petitioner’s pension. Though no communication was addressed to the petitioner by the respondents, the respondents wrote to the Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Centre, State Bank of India, on 21 September 2016, thus: “No.231849903377/1986359/A2 Diary No: PR316055