What
is prayed for is also not the same rate but the
same
principle, namely, flat rate be made applicable to pre 01.11.2002
retirees as well but at a
rate of 0.24%.
24.
Would that be the correct approach? The tapering formula
undoubtedly
begins with 0.24% for the first segment of Rs.3550/- of basic
pension
and then progressively steps down and finally reaches the level of
0.06% where the basic
pension is in excess of Rs.6010/-.
25. In
our view any attempt to tinker with either the formula or the rate
would
make the whole scheme unworkable as was cautioned by this Court in
the
case of P.N. Menon and Others (supra). As held in
the case of Indian
Ex-Services League and Others (supra)
the decision of this Court in D.S.
Nakara (supra) is
one of limited application and there is no scope for
enlarging the ambit of
that decision to cover all schemes made by the
retirees
or a demand for an identical amount of pension irrespective of the
date
of retirement. The reliance on the resolutions/circulars issued by
Reserve
Bank of India was also misplaced. It is true that the tapering
formula
was done away with by Reserve Bank of India but that by itself
cannot
entitle the retirees prior to 01.11.2002 either to be conferred the
advantage
at the same rate made applicable by Reserve Bank of India or at
the flat rate of 0.24% as
was sought to be projected.
In our
considered view, the assessment made by the Division Bench of
the
Madras High Court was absolutely correct. The settlement has to be
taken
as a package deal and it would be impossible to hold certain parts
good
and acceptable while finding other parts to be bad. Moreover, the
recitals
D, E and F in the Bipartite settlement dated 02.06.2005 (quoted
hereinabove)
show that a package deal was entered into and Rs.1288 crores
per
annum towards all the benefits was set apart for the benefit of the
employees.
Any stepping up of benefit for a section of employees is bound
to inflate the figure of
Rs.1288 crores per annum though that by itself is not
a
ground that weighs with us. In our view both the categories of retirees,
namely,
pre November 2002 and post November, 2002 stand on different
footing,
the parameters which govern the computation of dearness relief are
also on a different
level. The decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well
as by
the Division Bench of the High Court failed to appreciate these aspects
and in
our view, the said decisions are completely erroneous.
26. It
may also be noted that the decision of the Division Bench of the
Madras
High Court having been confirmed by this Court, the matter stands
concluded.
As has been observed in paragraphs 32, 41 and 44 of
Kunhayammed and Others v.
State of Kerala and Another11,
once leave to
appeal
had been granted and the appellate jurisdiction of this Court was
invoked
the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger. Be
that as it may, we are
satisfied that the Bipartite Settlement did not create
any
distinction which was inconsistent with the principles laid down by this
Court.
27. We
therefore allow these appeals, set aside the judgments and orders
passed
in the appeals and dismiss Writ Petition No.507 of 2012 preferred by
respondent Nos.1 to 4
herein. No order as to costs.
