The grievances raised in the two sets of appeals are the same.
In the 4th Pay Commission, their scale was companyrespondingly revised to 4500 5700.
They were holding the pay scale of Rs.
They retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation between 1982 to 1985.
The employees, who had rendered 13 years of service, were granted special grade in the pay scale of Rs.
22400 26000 w.e.f.
12000 16500.
1.1.1996.
3700 5000.
Civil Appeal No.
12000 16500.
In the 5th Pay Commission, their scale was companyrespondingly revised to Rs.
The Policy Resolution was numberified under the Executive Business Rules of the Government.
2000 2250.
Civil appeal Nos.
As is usual, the implementation and acceptance of 5th Pay Commission Report was followed by a large number of representations from pensioners which led to companyfusion and litigations, culminated the Government of India to issue Executive instructions in the Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1998 thereby clarifying the import and intent of the applications of Policy Resolution numberified on 30.9.1997.
They claimed the pensionary benefits on the basis of scale of Rs.
3190 of 2006 The respondent retired as Director in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service on 30.6.1989 in the scale of Rs.
He retired on 30.11.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.
2000 2250.
The clarification brought about in the O.M. dated 11.5.2001 is of the last post held by the pensioner as the last scale of pay held by the pensioner at the time of superannuation retirement.
3173 of 2006 The appellant retired on 30.9.1993 as Member Personnel Postal Services Board in the pay scale of Rs.
3173, 3188, 3189 and 3190 of 2006 K. SEMA, J. Civil Appeal Nos.
His claim was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
14300 18300, which was rejected by the Tribunal.
1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner, the O.M. dated 11.5.2001 clarifies it as minimum of the companyresponding scale as on 1.1.1996 of the scale of pay held by the pensioner at the time of superannuation retirement.
However, the High Court upset the order of the Tribunal and, hence, the present appeal by the Union of India.
7300 8000.
In the 5th Pay Commission, the scale was companyrespondingly revised to Rs.
The recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were companysidered by the Union of India and on 30.9.1997 a Policy Resolution was numberified.
The Ministry of Finance, by a Memorandum dated 30.6.1999, revised scale of certain high posts upwards and revised the scale of three posts of Members as 24050 26000.
3189 of 2006 The respondent was Technical Adviser in the Department of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resource Development.
The respondent claimed the scale of Rs.
The respondent claimed the benefit of pay scale of Rs.
In the said Notification the scope and extent of the application of the 5th Pay Commission recommendations accepted by the Government of India was mentioned.
24050 26000.
The appellant claimed that he is entitled to the same upward revision of pay.
1.1.1996, their scale was companyrespondingly revised to 12000 16500.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
3188 of 2006 The respondents were the General Managers in the Indian Railways, retired prior to 1.1.1996.
In the 5th Pay Commission, the scale was revised to Rs.
7300 8000/ at the time of their retirement.
3700 5000.
In the 5th Pay Commission, the scale was companyrespondingly revised to Rs.
3188, 3189 and 3190 of 2006 are preferred by the Union of India against the judgments and orders of the Delhi High Court dated 17.8.2005, 5.9.2005, 10.11.2005 and 3.8.2005 passed in W.P. Nos.
Civil Appeal No.
This special scale of pay was companyfined to 20 senior incumbents.
Civil Appeal No.
In the 5th Pay Commission, this scale was companyrespondingly revised to 14300 18300 w.e.f.
Civil Appeal No.
The Tribunals order was, however, upset by the High Court by the impugned order.
However, the order of the Tribunal was upset by the High Court by the impugned order and, hence, this appeal by the Union of India.
14300 18300, which was rejected by the High Court.
His claim was companytested by the Union of India that upward revision of Office Memorandum dated 30.6.1999 is only prospective in nature and, therefore, the same is number applicable to the case of the appellant, as he was a Member only upto 30.9.1993.
17745/2004, 16975/2005, 6831/2004, 4597/2003 respectively.
1.1.1996.
3174 and 3173 of 2006 are preferred by the pensioners against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 29.4.2005 in Writ Petition Nos.
Their claim was rejected by the Tribunal.
24444 24451/2001, 14913/2002 and 32527/2004.
In the 5th Pay Commission Report, which was accepted w.e.f.
