Bipendra Nath Verma vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING on 23 October 2026

1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Raisina Road, New Delhi.

2. The Secretary, DoPT, Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances/Pensions, GOI, North Block, New Delhi.

3. General Manager, North Eastern Railways, Gorakhpur.

4. Financial Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer (Pension Sanctioning Authority), North Eastern Railways, Gorakhpur.

5. Assistant General Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Center, State Bank of India, Chandani Chowk Branch Premises, 3rd Floor, Chandani Chowk, Delhi – 110006.

6. Manager, State Bank of India, Dayal Bagh Branch Agra, Agra – 282005.

7. AFA/General, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. …..Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

Smt. Sandhya Dubey

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to additional pension, the applicant has sought following reliefs:- a) To issue an appropriate order or direction thereby directing the opposite parties to provide the enhanced Pension of 20% from the day i.e. 01.11.2023 when the applicant crossed the age of 79 years and reached at the first day of 80 years i.e. 01.11.2023 (after the completion of 79 years) on the post of Chief Traffic Inspector on which he retired from the office of Chief Operation Manager, North

Eastern Railways, Gorakhpur with the arrears and interest accrued thereon. a-i) To issue an appropriate order or direction thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the opposite party no. 7 as contained in Annexure A-1 to the original application.

b) To issue an appropriate order or direction to the opposite parties to dispose of the representations of the applicant which are contained as Annexure-9 &16 to the original application in the light of directions given by the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.03.2018 passed in the Case No. WP(C) 4224/2016 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 08.07.2019 in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18133/2019. c) To issue a suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. d) To award the cost of this Original Application.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant retired from service on 31.10.2004 while working on the post of Chief Operations Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and has been getting pension since. He represented to respondents no. 5 and 6 on 13.07.2023 for enhanced pension on crossing the age of 79 years followed by representation dated 11.08.2023 addressed to respondent no. 5 and dated 20.08.2023 to respondent no. 2. Further correspondence followed and eventually the applicant’s representation came to be rejected by respondent no. 7. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant’s contention, firstly, is that the office memorandum (OM) dated 12.05.2017 by the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare (DPPW) provides for payment of additional 20% of the revised basic pension if the age of the pensioner is from 80 years to less than 85 years. Secondly, he contends that in terms of the judgment and order dated 15.03.2018 passed by Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 4224/2016 Virendra Dutt Gyani vs Union of India & Ors., which has attained finality, it has been settled that the benefit of additional quantum of pension would be available from the first day of the 80th year.

4. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the Railway Board’s letter dated 15.09.2008 as well as DPPW’s OM dated 12.05.2017 provide that the benefit of additional pension is admissible to pensioner of more than 80 years of age. They also refer to OM dated 23.08.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) having similar provision for payment of additional pension after completion of 80 years of age.

5. Heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant additionally cites judgment and order dated 02.08.2023 of the Learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA 2062/2023 in Ex Hav (Hony Nb Sub) Matu Ram Jinnagal vs Union of India & Ors. The respondents rely on the judgment rendered by the Ernakulum Bench of this Tribunal in RA No. 180/19/2023 in OA No. 180/00115/2022 C S Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare. The issue for consideration is whether the applicant, who is a retired Railway servant, is entitled to additional pension from the 1st day of his 80th year of age (i.e., after completion of 79 years of age) or on completion of 80 years of age. 6.1 Perusal of Railway Board’s letter dated 15.09.2008 cited by the respondents brings out the following provision relevant to the present controversy: “Sub: Implementation of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission – Revision of provisions regulating pension/gratuity/commutation of pension/family pension/disability pension. …. 5.7 The quantum of pension available to the old pensioners shall be increased as follows:

Age of Pensioner Additional quantum of pension From 80 years to less than 85 years 20% of basic pension From 85 years to less than 90 years 30% of basic pension

From 90 years to less than 95 years 40% of basic pension From 95 years to less than 100 years 50% of basic pension 100 years or more 100% of basic pension

The Pension Sanctioning Authorities should ensure that the date of birth and the age of a pensioner if invariably indicated in the pension payment order to facilitate payment of additional pension by the Pension Disbursing Authority as soon as it becomes due. The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the pension payment order. For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his pension is is Rs. 10,000 pm, the pension will be shown as (i) Basic pension = Rs. 10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = Rs. 2,000 pm. The pension on his attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as (i) Basic Pension = Rs. 10,000 and (ii) additional pension = Rs. 3,000 pm.”

It appears from the table given in paragraph 5.7 of the Railway Board’s letter dated 15.09.2008 quoted above that additional quantum of 20% pension would be payable from attaining 80 years of age till less than 85 years of age for the reason that this period constitutes the five year block for which additional 20% pension would be payable. It is noteworthy that the expression used in the table is ‘from 80 years to less than 85 years’ and not ‘from 80th year to less than 85th year’; the applicant’s contention would be acceptable in case of the latter expression as the 80th year of pensioner’s life would commence after completion of 79 years of life; however, this is not how the condition has been described in the table of paragraph 5.7. If any elaboration was needed, it has been provided in the example (highlighted) given below the table in paragraph 5.7. 6.2 A similar position obtains in DPPW’s OM dated 12.05.2017 cited by the applicant as well as the respondents: “Sub: Implementation of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission – Revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners/family pensioners etc. ….

15. The quantum of age-related pension/family pension available to the old pensioners/family pensioners shall continue to as follows:

Age of pensioner/family pensioner Additional quantum of pension From 80 years to less than 85 years 20% of revised basic pension/family pension From 85 years to less than 90 years 30% of revised basic pension/family pension From 90 years to less than 95 years 40% of revised basic pension/family pension From 95 years to less than 100 years 50% of revised basic pension/family pension 100 years or more 100% of revised basic pension/family pension

The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the pension payment order. For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his/her pension is Rs. 10,000 pm, the pension will be shown as (i) Basic pension = Rs. 10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = Rs. 2,000 pm. The pension on his/her attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as (i) Basic Pension = Rs. 10,000 and (ii) additional pension = Rs. 3,000 pm. Dearness relief will be admissible on the additional pension available to the old pensioners also.”

It is observed that here also, the example given below the table in paragraph 15 supports the interpretation that the additional 20% pension to the pensioner or family pensioner is to be provided if his/her age is more than 80 years. 6.3 It is also noteworthy that in the scheme of governance of pension matters of the employees of Union of India, DPPW has the following mandate as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961: “1. Formulation of policy and co-ordination of matters relating to retirement benefits to Central Government employees (Civil, Defence and Railway Pensioners). …”

It is evident from the above that in the matters of policy and coordination, the DPPW has the mandate for Central Government employees, including Railway pensioners. Therefore, the DPPW’s OMs on pension matters would be applicable to Railway pensioners unless

Railway Board brings out different instructions in consultation with DPPW to address specific and distinguishable service conditions of Railway employees. In the instant case, it is observed that the Railway Board’s letter dated 15.09.2008 nor DPPW’s OM dated 12.05.2017 contain similar provisions. 6.4 It is noted that neither the Railway Board’s letter dated 15.09.2008 nor DPPW’s OM dated 12.05.2017 is under challenge. 6.5 Coming to Virendra Dutt Gyani (supra) cited by the applicant, it is noted that the petitioner therein was a retired Acting Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court and his conditions of service were governed by the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the controversy was adjudicated in terms of Section 17B of the said Act. Therefore, the ratio in Virendra Dutt Gyani (supra) would not be of avail to the applicant whose pension is governed under the instructions issued by the Railway Board. Similarly, the benefit of Matu Ram Jinnagal (supra) would not be available to the applicant as that case pertains to a person in the armed forces. 6.6 In conclusion, the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of the reliefs sought by him. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit. 7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A)

Warij Warij Yadav Digitally signed by Warij Yadav