Chellasamy Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary and Others - Court Judgment

V. Periya Karuppiah, Member (Judicial):

1. This application has been filed by the applicant for the grant of relief to call for the records including Letter dated 27.03.2012 in File No.G2/II/Misc/2012 on the file of PCDA (P), Allahabad and to grant of pension benefits as per the recommendations of VI Central Pay Commission to the pre-1.1.2006 retirees and consequently to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of the Letter dated 12.06.2009 to the applicant who retired prior to 01.01.2006.

2. The factual matrix of the case of applicant as contained in the application would be as follows:

The applicant joined the Indian Army as Sepoy on 20.08.1968 and he was discharged in the rank of Havildar after completing 24 years of unblemished record. Accordingly, he retired on 31.08.1992 and after his retirement, he was conferred with the rank of Honorary Naib Subedar and was receiving pension on par with Honorary Naib Subedar. The applicant was also issued Pension Payment Order No.S/019084/92 and S/CORR/066395/93 by PCDA (Pensions), Allahabad. After retirement, the applicant enrolled himself as a member of the Tamil Nadu Ex- Services League bearing Registration No.116/2010, an association duly registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1978, for the welfare of the retired persons from Armed Forces.

3. As per the V Central Pay Commission, the pay of the Honorary Naib Subedars was fixed at 50% of the minimum pay of Honorary Naib Subedars, as per the letter of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 07.06.1999 irrespective of period of retirement. Accordingly, the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission were enforced from 01.01.1996 and the applicant was also given the benefit. The VI Central Pay Commission had also recommended certain benefits to the retired Honorary Naib Subedars and it was implemented by the Government of India through its letter dated 12.06.2009 in No.1(8)/2008-F(Pen/Policy). The 5th respondent however interpreted that the benefit will go only to the Honorary Naib Subedar who retired on or after 01.01.2006 and the said benefit would not be available to pre-01.01.2006 retirees. The said interpretation is not correct in terms of paragraph-2 of the said letter which runs as follows:

œ2. This letter takes effect from 1st January, 2006.? Such an interpretation is contrary to the recommendations made by VI Central Pay Commission and is therefore not sustainable. The requisitions made by the applicant and Ex-Service League Members were rejected by the 4th respondent and in consequence, the 5th respondent wrote a letter dated 27.03.2012 that the fixation as provided in Para-5 of the Notification, dated 11.11.2008 has been clarified through letter dated 8.3.2010 by inserting Para 5.1.62 of VI Pay Commission recommendation and also through the letter of Ministry of Defence, dated 12.06.2009. As per the said interpretation, the benefit is applicable only to the post- 1.1.2006 retirees and not the pre-retirees, which is incorrect. The said interpretation of the 5th respondent with regard to the benefits given under letter of first respondent dated 12.06.2009 and the recommendations of VI Central Pay Commission are against the intention of those letter and recommendations. The true intention is that the pre- retirees were also conferred with such benefits and it was decided that such benefits be given to the applicants on their applications filed before the Armed Forces Tribunals at Jaipur, Chandimandir and other Regional Benches. The Chandigarh Bench in Virender Singh and Ors vs. UOI and Ors in O.A.No.42 of 2010 considered various rules, regulations and the contents of the letter dated 12.6.2009, and passed an order on 8.2.2010 granting the benefits to those Honorary Naib Subedars who retired prior to 1.1.2006 also. The Honble Supreme Court of India confirmed the said judgment in SLP No.36534 of 2010 and the appeal preferred by the respondents was also dismissed. Similar applications were filed before Circuit Bench at Simla, Lucknow Benches and those applications were also allowed in the lines of judgment made in Virender Singh. The impugned order was made in the letter dated 27.03.2012, a reply to the representation of the Tamil Nadu Ex-Services League dated 12.3.2012, by stating that no general order can be passed following the said decisions on the request of the applicant and it was required for a specific Court Order for the grant of benefits to the applicant given under the VI Central Pay Commission and the letter of the Government dated 12.06.2009. Therefore, the applicant has filed the application before this Tribunal for the aforesaid relief and application may thus be allowed.

4. The objections raised on behalf of the respondents in the reply- statement would be as follows:

The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army MEG on 20.08.1968 and was discharged from service on 31.8.1992 afternoon after fulfilling the conditions of enrolment. The applicant was granted Honorary rank of Naib Subedar after retirement with effect from 1.9.1992 and the service pension granted to him with effect from 1.9.1992 was for the rank of Havildar. The notional pay fixation of Honorary ranks for the purpose of pension under GOI, MOD (Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare) letter No.1(8()/2008D (Pen/Policy) dated 12th June 2009 is applicable to Honorary Naib Subedars who were discharged from service on or after 1.1.2006 and hence, the applicant is not entitled to the benefits of such letter. The entire recommendations of the Central Pay Commission were not taken into account by the Government of India for implementation. Considering the financial constraints, one of the various parameters of pay revisions are given with cut-off dates. The Honble Apex Court observed in the Civil Appeal D.No.13139 of 2011 between Union of India and Ors and Sohan Lal Bawa and Ors against the order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A.No.337 of 2010 dated 8.7.2010 that,

œIt needs, however, to be clarified that the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal shall relate only to the case of Havildars who, before their retirement, were granted honorary promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar and shall not be used as a precedent in case of other ranks.?

Since Honorary ranks of Naib Subedar is granted to Havildar only on retirement and not before retirement, a Review Petition (Civil) No.365 of 2013 was filed for curation. In the meantime, the ADG PS, AGs Branch, IHQ of MOD notified the instructions, vide letter No.B/39022/Misc/AG/PS-4 (L) dated 29th February 2012 to clarify the letter dated 12.6.2009 that the benefit of service pension of Naib Subedar rank was extended to the Havildars who were granted Honorary rank of Naib Subedars on retirement. The said Review Petition preferred before the Honble Apex Court was dismissed on the ground of limitation and merit. Therefore, the said confusion still persists. The JAG Department/Legal Officer (Def), the IHQ of MOD (Army), ADG PS issued a letter No.B/39022/Misc/AG/PS-4 (L) dated 23.4.2013 cancelling the letter dated 29th February 2012 and also stated that pre-2006 Honorary Naib Subedar cannot be admitted to the pension of Naib Subedar with effect from 1.1.2006. These provisions in the letter dated 12.6.2009 are applicable to those Havildars who were granted such Honorary rank post- 2006, Since the Honble Armed Forces Tribunals interpreted cut-off date of 1.1.2006 as applicable for the grant of financial benefits irrespective of the date of retirement had led to a spate of litigation on this issue. For the reasons stated above, the application may be dismissed as devoid of merit.

5. The submissions made by the applicant in the Rejoinder would be as follows:

While reiterating allegations made in the application, the applicant denied the stand taken by the respondents that the conferment of benefits of the letter dated 12.6.2009 to the post-1.1.2006 retirees only. It is submitted by the applicant that the grant of pension benefits as per VI Central Pay Commission and the letter dated 12.6.2009 are applicable to Pre-1.1.2006 retirees and it was also confirmed by the Honble Apex Court in SLP No.36534 of 2010 in between UOI vs. Virender Singh and through the subsequent judgments delivered by various Armed Forces Tribunal Benches and the Principal Bench and therefore, the application filed by the applicant has to be allowed.

6. On the above pleadings, the following points were framed for consideration:

(1) Whether the Honorary Naib Subedars retired prior to 1.1.2006 are entitled to the benefits given under the letter of GOI MOD dated 12.06.2009?

(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits as recommended by VI Central Pay Commission to the Honorary Naib Subedars and the letter issued by GOI, MOD (Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare) No.1(8)/2008D (Pen/Policy) dated 12th June 2009?

3) To what relief the applicant is entitled to?

7. Heard Mr. J. Saravana Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and B.Shanthakumar, learned Senior Panel Counsel assisted by Captain Vaibhav Kumar, learned Assistant JAG Officer appearing for the respondents.

8. Point Nos.1 and 2: The indisputable facts in this case would be that the applicant was enrolled in the army on 20.8.1968 and was discharged, after completing 24 years of service, on 31.08.1992. The applicant was conferred with the rank of Honorary Naib Subedar and the service pension was granted in the rank of Havildar with effect from 1.9.1992.

9. The applicant has produced his PPO as Annexure-I in Compilation-II along with Corrigendum issued in his favour. In the Corrigendum, the rank last held by the applicant was corrected as Honorary Naib Subedar instead of Havildar. Similarly, the rank for pension was corrected as Honorary Naib Subedar. The other Corrigendum referred to the quantum of pension and others. The said Corrigendum was issued on 31.3.1993 and therefore, it could be found that the applicant was receiving pension, in accordance with the recommendations of V Central Pay Commission. The said fact that the applicant was conferred with the benefit of pension as recommended by V Central Pay Commission has not been disputed by the respondents. The applicant has now come forward with this application for the grant of benefits as recommended by VI Central Pay Commission towards the revision of pension to the Honorary Naib Subedar on par with the rank of Subedar. The said claim is based on a letter dated 12.06.2009 issued by the Government of India in No.1(8)/2008D (Pen/Policy). According to the said letter of Government dated 12.06.2009 produced as Annexure-R1, we could see as follows:

œI am directed to say that in pursuance of Governments decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission contained in Para 5.1.62 of Chapter V of the Report, the President is pleased to decide that Honorary rank of Naib Subedar granted to Havildars will be notionally considered as a promotion to the higher grade of Naib Subedar and benefit of fitment in the pay band and the higher grade pay will be allowed notionally for the purpose of fixation of pension only. Accordingly, additional element of pension of Rs.100/- pm payable to Havildars granted Hony rank of Naib Subedar as per Regn. 137 of Pension Regulations for the Army Part-I (1961), amended vide this Ministrys letter No.1(1)/88/D(Pen/Sers) dated 6.11.1991 will cease to be payable. The notional fixation of pay in the rank of Naib Subedar will not be taken into account for payment of retirement gratuity, encashment of leave, composite transfer grant etc.

2. This letter takes effect from 1st January, 2006.

3. This issues with the concurrence of Finance Division of this Ministry vide their UO No.2351/Finance/Pension dated 3.6.2009.?

10. The learned Senior Panel Counsel submitted his arguments on the basis that the benefit of the aforesaid Government letter dated 12.06.2009 would be available to Honorary Naib Subedar retired on and after 1.1.2006 and the pre-1.1.2006 retirees of Honorary Naib Subedar are not entitled to such benefits. Furthermore, he would argue that the judgments rendered by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Virender Singh vs. UOI and Sohan Lal Bawa vs. UOI and ors. Cannot be followed in view of the observation made by the Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.13139 of 2011 against the judgments filed against Sohan Lal Bawa case. It was further argued by the learned Senior Panel Counsel, that the Honble Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the respondents, commented upon entitlement of the benefits to the Havildars who were granted honorary promotion to the rank of Naib Subedars before their retirement and it shall not be used as a precedent in the case of other ranks. His further contention would be that the Review Application filed by the respondents in RP(Civil) No.365 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2011 was also dismissed on the basis of limitation and merits and he would further submit that the case of the applicant that he is entitled to the benefits of 12.6.2009 letter cannot be considered and the stalemate continues. He would therefore, request that the application may be dismissed.

11. We have considered his submissions and also the submissions of the learned counsel of the applicant. The order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Chandigarh Bench in Virender Singh case was confirmed by the Honble Apex Court and it became final. The respondents do not dispute the position. In the said judgment of Virender Singh, the applicant being a pre-1.1.2006 retiree was granted pension in the rank of Honorary Naib Subedar as per the letter dated 12.6.2009.

12. It is also an indisputable fact that every Havildar who was selected for the conferment of Naib Subedar was given with the Honorary Naib Subedar rank at the time of his retirement and not before the retirement of any Havildar. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the Havildars who retired after 1.1.2006 were also granted Honorary rank of Naib Subedar only at the time of retirement and not before their retirement. He would also rely upon the judgment of Sohan Lal Bawa vs. UOI rendered by the Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench, Chandigarh following the principles laid down in Virender Singh case.

13. In the appeal preferred by the respondents against the order of Chandigarh Bench in Sohan Lal Bawa case, the Honble Apex Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the benefit given to Sohan Lal Bawa. However, in the subsequent paragraph, the Honble Apex Court mentioned that the grant of benefits to the Havildars who were conferred with the Honorary Naib Subedars before their retirement and that should not be followed as a precedent in the case of other ranks. The learned counsel for the applicant would interpret that other ranks means the Honorary rank conferred on the other personnel like Havildar at the time of their retirement. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the said reference of Honourable Apex Court was taken advantage by the respondents and they issued a letter to the effect that the pre-1.1.2006 retirees are not eligible for the benefits/recommendations of VI Central Pay Commission and the letter of MOD dated 12.6.2009. He would further refer to various judgments of Chandigarh Bench, Circuit Bench of Simla, Jaipur Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal and Principal Bench, New Delhi in support of his arguments that the pre-1.1.2006 retirees are entitled to the benefits of VI Central Pay Commission as incorporated in the letter dated 12.06.2009. He would also cite a judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi Bench made in O.A.No.100-125 of 2012 dated 21.8.2012 and an order passed by the Principal Bench, New Delhi in M.A.No.243 of 2013 in O.A.No.400 of 2012 dated 10.05.2013. He would also submit that the judgments of Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi and Principal Bench, New Delhi, were rendered after the Honble Apex Court has passed the order in Civil Appeal D.No.13130 of 2011, dated 7.7.2011. Therefore, he would submit that the judgments made by the Honble Apex Court in Virender Singh case is holding the field and the applicant may be granted the benefits as sought for.

14. When we consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and also the Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents, we have to firstly see whether the Government letter dated 12.6.2009 issued on the recommendations contained in Para 5.1.62 of Chapter V of the VI Central Pay Commission is not benefitting the pre- 1.1.2006 retiree Havildars conferred with Honorary Naib Subedar ranks. For understanding the crux of the case, it has become necessary to subscribe the said paragraph 5.1.62 of VI Central Pay Commission recommendation which runs as follows:

œ5.1.62. Presently, Havaldars on getting the rank of Honorary Naib Subedar are given an additional pension of Rs.100. As against this, JCOs after becoming Honorary officers get pension as per the existing formula on the basis of pay attached to the post of Honorary officer. Defence Forces have proposed that the pension of Honorary Naib Subedars may also be fixed, accordingly, on the basis of pay attached to the rank. The proposal is inherent in the revised scheme of pay bands being proposed. A Havaldar, on promotion as Honorary Naib Subedar will be eligible for pension with reference to the salary drawn/drawable in the rank of Naib Subedar. Further, pension is now payable with reference to either 10 months average emoluments or the last pay drawn, whichever is beneficial. In light of these changes being recommended, pension for all Honorary ranks of Naib Subedar will henceforth be payable by taking this placement as a regular promotion to the higher grade wherein benefit of fitment in the pay band and the higher grade pay will be taken into account for purposes of fixation of pension?.

15. According to the tenor of the recommendations of VI Central Pay Commission, the JCOs after becoming Honorary officers used to get pension on the basis of the pay attached to the post of Honorary Officer. Accordingly, the proposals submitted by the Defence Forces that the pension of Naib Subedar may also be fixed on the basis of the pay attached to their rank, was considered by the VI Pay Commission and a recommendation was made in the said paragraph. In the said recommendation, pension for all honorary ranks of Naib Subedar will simultaneously be payable by taking this placement as a regular promotion to the higher grade wherein benefit of fitment in the pay band and the higher grade pay will be taken into account for purposes of fixation of pension only. It would make us clear that the recommendation of Pay Commission was that the benefits shall be available to all the ranks of Naib Subedars without any reservation or exception and due to this intention, the expression, all Honorary ranks of Naib Subedars has been used in the above paragraph of the recommendations. No doubt the Government letter dated 12.06.2009 was based upon the recommendation of the VI Central Pay Commission, where the pre-1.1.2006 retirees were not excluded from getting the benefits. The Government letter dated 12.6.2009 issued can be thus understood that the benefits have been conferred on all the Honorary Naib Subedars. For better understanding, we have to once again peruse the contents of the letter dated 12.6.2009. In the said letter, it is categorically mentioned that the additional element of pension of Rs.100/- per month payable to Havildars granted to the Honorary rank of Naib Subedars as per Regulation 137 of Pension Regulations for the Army Part-I (1961) and the MOD letter dated 6.11.1991 will cease to be paid with effect from 1.1.2006. That means that the pre-1.1.2006 retirees, who were given benefit of the revision of pension at the Honorary Naib Subedar rank, as per V Central Pay Commission and the letter dated 6.11.1991 would cease to get the payment of Rs.100/- in lieu of the benefit given under VI Central Pay Commission and the GOI MOD letter dated 12.6.2009. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the pre- 1.1.2006 retirees cannot be left from getting the benefit of the letter of Government of India MOD (Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare) letter No.1(8)/2008D (Pen/Policy) dated 12th June 2009. It was also argued by the learned Senior Panel Counsel that para-2 of the said letter indicates that the said letter takes effect from 1.1.2006 means that the benefits shall be conferred only upon the retirees who retired on or after 1.1.2006. In our view, the said para means that the benefits shall be given with effect from 1.1.2006 and not otherwise.

16. There is no dispute that the judgment of Chandigarh Bench made in Virender Singh vs. UOI (O.A.No.42 of 2010) was confirmed by the Honble Apex Court in the order passed in SLP Civil No.18582 of 2010, dated 13.12.2010. The said order is produced as Annexure-1 in the citations produced by the applicant. In the order of Chandigarh Bench, the reliefs sought for by the applicant, a pre-1.1.2006 retiree were granted. The said decision of Chandigarh Bench has been upheld by the Honble Apex Court, as aforesaid. Similarly, various judgments were rendered by Chandigarh Bench in O.A.616 of 2011, dated 6.5.2011, in O.A.712 of 2011, dated 26.5.2011, in O.A.816 of 2011, dated 4.7.2011 by following the principles laid down in Virender Singhs case. The Lucknow Bench in O.A.No.272 of 2011, dated 28.9.2013 in between Ram Pyare and Ors vs. UOI and Ors and the Jaipur Bench in O.A.No.232 of 2012, dated 2.4.2012 arrived to a similar conclusion by granting the benefits of Government letter dated 12.06.2009 to Havildars who were conferred Honorary rank of Naib Subedar, retired prior to 1.1.2006. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the applicant is also entitled to the benefit conferred in the Government letter MOD (Department of Ex- Servicemen Welfare) No.1(8)/2008D (Pen/Policy) dated 12.6.2009.

17. The second objection raised by the learned Senior Panel Counsel in respect of the orders passed by the Honble Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Sohan Lal Bawa and Ors. (Civil Appeal D.No.13139 of 2011) has to be considered. The judgments rendered by Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi Bench in O.A.100-125 of 2012, dated 21.8.2012 is also helpful to clear the doubt raised during the submission of the learned Senior Panel Counsel while interpreting the order passed by the Honble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal D.No.13139 of 2011, dated 7.7.2011 between UOI and Ors. vs. Sohan Lal Bawa. The relevant passage in the judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi Bench, would run as follows:

œ10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the matter of Union of India vs. Sohan Lal Bawa (Civil Appeal D.No.13139 of 2011), the Apex Court has held that the benefit is available to those who were granted Honorary promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar before their retirement. Therefore, the applicants who were conferred Honorary Rank after the retirement were not entitled for the benefit.

11. In our opinion, the Apex Court in fact extended the benefit to only those who were granted Honorary promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar and pointed out that the said principle will not be followed as a precedent in the case of other ranks. In other words, the Apex Court made a distinction between the Havildars granted Honorary rank of Naib Subedar and other ranks, and allowed the benefits to Havildars only. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the parties conceded that there is not a single case in which Havildar was granted Honorary rank of Naib Subedar before retirement. They further clarified that the Honorary rank of Naib Subedar is ordinarily granted to Havildars after retirement. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondents has no merit. Similarly, a judgment of the Honble Principal Bench made in M.A.No.243 of 2013 in O.A.No.400 of 2012, dated 10.5.2013 in between Ex Hav (Hony NB Sub) Ram Kanwar vs. UOI and Ors would also be helpful to solve the issue. The relevant passage would be as follows:

œThere is reservation in the minds of respondents in execution of order and implementation of Government order dated 12.06.2009 on account of subsequent order of Honble Supreme Court. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sohan Lal Bawa, while dismissing the petition of Union of India on the basis of earlier order in the case of Union of India vs. Virender Singh, their Lordships made following observation:

It needs, however, to be clarified that the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal shall relate only to the cases of Havildars who, before their retirement, were granted honorary promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar and shall not be used as a precedent in case of other ranks.

It appears that the attention of the Honble Supreme Court was not properly invited to the fact that honorary ranks are normally granted only after the retirement. A Review Application was filed before the Honble Supreme Court by the Union of India and this matter again came up before the Honble Supreme Court, however, same was dismissed on 06.03.2013 on the ground of limitation and on merit. Therefore, this confusion still persists.

4. As far as the execution of this order is concerned we dont find any impediment in granting pension to all the Honorary Nb Subedars since they have been granted the rank of Honorary Nb Subedar after their retirement in accordance with Govt. letter of 12.06.2009. The order dated 12.06.2009 is very clear that this benefit of Honorary Nb Subedar will be available to them only for the purposes of fixation of pension. Since pension is only admissible to the Havildars after they have retired it is evident that they will be entitled to such post-retirement increase in pension. Similarly, Para 28 of Govt. of India, Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence Order dated 16.05.2008 clarifies the position that the rank of Nb Subedar and Naib Risaldar is granted on retirement or within one year of their becoming non effective immediately after retirement. As such we dont see any difficulty in directing the respondents to implement the order dated 12.06.2009. This position is accordingly disposed off. Learned counsel for respondents prays for leave to appeal to the Honble Supreme Court. There is no question of law of public importance involved in this matter and we have decided the matter on the basis of Government Orders. As such, we dont think it is a fit case to grant leave to appeal before the Honble Supreme Court as it does not involve any question of public importance. Therefore, the oral application for leave to appeal is rejected. œ

18. On a careful understanding of the aforesaid judgments, we could see that those judgments were pronounced after the judgment in Civil appeal D.No.13139 of 2011 was delivered by the Honble Apex Court on 7.7.2011. Both judgments have considered the facts and circumstances and had given a candid explanation as extracted above. Accordingly, the pension benefit available to those who were granted promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar before their retirement was extended to those who were granted Honorary promotion to the rank of Naib Subedars. It was also opined in the said judgments that the Havildars who were granted Honorary rank of Naib Subedars were distinguished with other ranks and the benefit allowed to the Havildars cannot be a precedent to other ranks.

19. We entirely concur with the opinion of the Kochi Bench since the post-1.1.2006 retirees of Havildars are also granted Honorary Naib Subedar ranks at the time of retirement, and not before their retirement. The respondents are under the obligation to treat the pre-1.1.2006 retirees who were given Honorary Naib Subedar rank at the time of retirement, in par with the post-1.1.2006 retirees who are not granted the Honorary Naib Subedar rank before their retirement. The Honble Principal Bench has also come to a conclusion that the Honorary Naib Subedar rank are ordinarily given at the time of retirement for the purposes of fixation of pension. Para-28 of Government of India Integrated HQ MOD Order dated 16.5.2008 clarifies the position that the rank of Naib Subedar and Naib Risaldar is granted on retirement or even within one year of their becoming non-effective immediately after their retirement, would go to show that the Honorary rank would be given normally at the time of retirement or even one year before becoming non-effective as stated in para-28 of the order dated 16.5.2008. The reasoning given by the Honble Principal bench in the order made in M.A. 243 of 2013 in O.A.No.400 of 2012 dated 10.05.2013 is also in tune with the decision of the Kochi Bench. We therefore concur with the views taken by both the Kochi Bench and Honble Principal Bench of New Delhi, in this regard.

20. In the said circumstances, we are of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to the benefits of the Government letter dated 12.6.2009 issued in pursuance of VI Central Pay Commission recommendation. Accordingly, both the points are decided in favour of the applicant.

21. Point No.3: For the reasons stated in the above points, the reliefs as sought for by the applicant are liable to be ordered and accordingly, the application is allowed. The applicant shall be granted the benefit of the letter of Government of India MOD (Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare) No.1(8)/2008D (Pen/Policy) dated 12.6.2009 with effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to make the payment of arrears amount payable to the applicant within three months and also to make corrigendum in the PPO. The amount of Rs.100/- per month which had already been paid to the applicant after 1.1.2006 in terms of Ministrys letter No.1(1)/88/D(Pen/Sers) dated 6.11.1991 shall be adjusted against the arrears of amount and the said payment of Rs.100/- shall cease.

22. In the result, the application is ordered as indicated above. No order as to costs.