Sr. No.59 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU SWP No. 1226/2018 IA No. 01/2018 Reserved on: 28.08.2025 Pronounced on: 25.09.2025 1. OmParkash,Age:70years S/OAmarNath, R/OVillageDhanpur, PostOfficeKhour, TehsilAkhnoor,DistrictJammu. 2. PritamSingh,Age:58years S/OWakilSingh, R/OVillageDhanpur, PostOfficeJourian, TehsilKhour,DistrictJammu. 3. BuaDitta,Age:75years S/OFeemuRam, R/OIndriPathan, PostOfficeJourian, TehsilAkhnoor,DistrictJammu. 4. PuranChand,Age:65years S/OSainDass, R/ODaskal, TehsilAkhnoor,DistrictJammu. 5. DevRaj,Age:65years S/OGaneshDass, R/OVillageDaskal, P/OAkhnoor,DistrictJammu. 6. HarbansLal,Age:65years S/OJaiRam, R/OVillageJakhari, PostOfficeAkhnoor, TehsilAkhnoor,DistrictJammu. 7. JagattarChand,Age:64years S/OBasantRam, R/OVillageJakhari, PostOfficeAkhnoor, TehsilAkhnoor,DistrictJammu. 8. RamLal,Age:52years S/OMohanLal, R/OVillageDaskal, PostOfficeAkhnoor, DistrictJammu. 9. KartarChand,Age:70years S/OKoliRam, R/OJasath, SWP No. 1226/2018 PostOfficeGhagwal,DistrictSamba. 10. SureshLal,Age:60years S/OBehariLal, R/OChhanMatloni, P/OGhagwal,DistrictKathua. 11. ChhajuRam,Age:67years S/ORasilaRam, R/OKaliBari, DistrictSamba. 12. SukhdevSingh,Age:66years S/OMaggarSingh, R/OKaloha, PostOfficeTaloor,Samba. 13. DharamChand,Age:68years S/OBeluRam, R/OSadhali, PostOfficeNaiKali,Samba. 14. JaswantSingh,Age:65years S/OChattarSingh, R/OJamora, PostOfficeNaiKali,Samba. 15. ChhajjuRam,Age:65years S/ONaroRam, R/ORehian(Khanwal), PostOfficeRehian,NearArmyCamp, DistrictSamba. 16. SurfDin,Age:54years S/OHussainMohd., R/OVillageSuchani,KhourTaloor, PostOfficeRahya, TehsilVijaypur,DistrictSamba. 17. MilkhiRam,Age:66years S/OMaruRam, R/OPangwal, PostOfficeSamba,DistrictSamba. 18. BhuriSingh,Age:56years S/OShivRam, R/OLiyan, PostOfficeBadigarh,Samba. 19. ParmaNand,Age:55years S/OGuranDitta, R/OPenthi, PostOfficeTaloor,Samba. 20. RattanSingh,Age:55years S/OMaruRam, R/OSamlha, PostOfficeSamba,DistrictSamba. 21. KeshavSingh,Age:71years SWP No. 1226/2018 S/OMezraSingh, R/OVillageBadhori, PostOfficeRahya, DistrictSamba. 22. ShunkuRam,Age:59years S/OAmarNath, R/OVillageNore. 23. GandharvSingh,Age:65years S/OLateChouraRam, R/OVillageRanjari, PostOfficeRahya, TehsilVijaypur,Samba. 24. SurinderSingh,Age:54years S/ONasibChand, R/OVillageRanjari, PostOfficeRahya, TehsilVijaypur,Samba. 25. RehmatAli,Age:72years R/OVillage& PostOfficeRahya, Tehsil&DistrictSamba. 26. BishanDass,Age:68years S/ORajaRam, R/OVillageRanjari, PostOfficeRahya, TehsilVijaypur,Samba. 27. GaneshDutt,Age:69years S/OPt.Jagdhar, R/OVillage& PostOfficeRehal, TehsilBishnah,DistrictJammu. …. Petitioner(s) Through:- Mr. Ajay Vaid, Advocate V/s 1. UnionofIndia,throughMinistryofHome Affairs,GovernmentofIndia,throughHome Secretary,NorthBlock,NewDelhi. 2. DepartmentofPensionandPensioners’ Welfare, MinistryofPersonnel,PublicGrievances& Pensions,throughitsSecretary,LokNayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 3. DirectorGeneral,BorderSecurityForce(BSF), NewDelhi. 4. DirectorGeneral,CentralReservePoliceForce (CRPF),NewDelhi. 5. DirectorGeneral,CentralIndustrialSecurity Force(CISF),NewDelhi. …..Respondent(s) SWP No. 1226/2018 Through:- Mr.VishalSharma,DSGIwith Mr.EishaanDadhichi,CGSCforR1toR4 Mr.PremN.Sadotra,CGSCforR-5 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE JUDGMENT 01. The petitioners, having common cause in identical facts, through the medium of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek the following reliefs: “a) To command and direct the respondents to pay the revised pension to the petitioners as per the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission (CPC) and Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016 issued by respondent No. 2, thereby paying revised pension to the petitioners as per the fitment table circulated vide notification of Ministry of Finance dated 30.08.2008, by issuance ofa writofmandamus. b) To command and direct the respondents to pay the arrears of differential in the revised pension to which the petitioners are entitled and the pension actually received by them w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till the new revised pension is notified as per the VII CPC, by issuance of a writ of mandamus. c) To command and direct the respondents to pay the revised pension to the petitioners as per the recommendations of the VII CPC from the date of implementation of its recommendations, by issuance of a writ of mandamus.” 02. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners are all retired personnel from the Central Armed Police Forces- Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF) and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), which are under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs. 03. Petitioner Surinder Singh retired as Havaldar from CRPF (Force No. 821196653) from 33rd Battalion on 31.12.2002. Petitioner Bua Ditta retired as Head Constable from CRPF (Force No. 620060656) on 01.01.1991 after serving 28 years. Petitioner Rampaul retired as Head SWP No. 1226/2018 Constable from CRPF (Personal No. 861170268). Petitioner Jagattar Chand (Force No. 750280262) retired as Naik from CRPF on 01.07.1996. Petitioner Puran Chand (Force No. 712651356) retired as Lance Naik from BSF on 01.01.1992. Petitioner Harbans Lal retired as Head Constable (Force No. 714660455) on 01.12.1997. Petitioner Om Parkash retired as Naik from CRPF on 28.02.1991. Petitioner Shunku Ram (Force No. 792980056) retired as Head Constable from 19th Battalion, BSF on 07.03.1979. Petitioner Bishan Dass (Force No. 712650535) retired as Head Constable from 152nd Battalion, BSF on 31.01.1993. Petitioner Milkhi Ram (Force No. 700080886) retired as Havaldar from 116th Battalion, CRPF. Petitioner Parma Nand (Force No. 831170119) retired as Head Constable from 149th Battalion, CRPF on 01.10.2003. Petitioner Dharam Chand also retired as Head Constable. Petitioner Surf Din retired as Head Constable from CISF after serving from 30.06.1984 to 31.03.2005. Petitioner Rehmat Ali retired as Head Constable from 151st Battalion, BSF (Force No. 66455385). Petitioner Rattan Lal (Force No. 830080287) retired as Lance Naik from CRPF on 01.04.2004. Petitioner Chhajju Ram (Force No. 68110022) retired as Head Constable from 46th Battalion, BSF on 01.11.1988. Petitioner Suresh Lal (Force No. 790240161) retired as Head Constable from 82nd Battalion, CRPF on 01.09.2001. Petitioner Gandharv Singh (Force No. 716440620) retired as Constable from 54th Battalion, BSF on 31.03.1992. Petitioner Bhuri Singh (Force No. 82028025) retired as Head Constable from CRPF on 31.08.2005. Petitioner Chajju Ram, retired as Head Constable from CRPF, 67th Battalion, on 31.01.1998. Petitioner Kartar Chand (Force No. 664661203) retired as Head Constable from 6th Battalion, BSF in 1988. SWP No. 1226/2018 Petitioner Jaswant Singh (Force No. 71500028) retired as Head Constable from 28th Battalion, BSF on 31.07.1992. Petitioner Sukhdev Singh retired as Lance Naik from 130th Battalion, CRPF on 30.11.1993. Petitioner Keshav Singh (Force No. 664551003) retired as Head Constable from 01 Battalion, BSF on 25.12.1986. Petitioner Ganesh Dutt (Force No. 701021212) retired as Head Constable from 01 Battalion, BSF on 31.10.2000. Petitioner Pritam Singh retired as Head Constable from CRPF. Petitioner Dev Raj retired as Naik from BSF on 01.04.1992. 04. After the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) came into force, there was revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners. Respondent No. 2, in terms of Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016, clarified that as per para 4.2 of its earlier O.M. dated 01.09.2008, the revised pension with effect from 01.01.2006 shall, in no case, be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale, from which the pensioner had retired. 05. The grievance of the petitioners is that most of them, being retired Head Constables, are entitled to revised grade pay of Rs. 2400, whereas their grade pay has been wrongly fixed as Rs. 2000. Similarly, for Constables, the prescribed grade pay of Rs. 2000 is not being correctly accounted for, accordingly, their pensions are being fixed at a lower level, without the increments as per the fitment table. 06. It is submitted that the Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) issued to the petitioners do not disclose their correct ranks, resulting in mis- categorization. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are entitled to revision of pension with effect from 01.01.2006 and arrears of the SWP No. 1226/2018 differential pension up to the date of implementation of the 7th CPC, and thereafter to revision as per the 7th CPC recommendations. It is also submitted by the petitioners that despite their repeated representations, the respondents have failed to act on the same. 07. Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Border Security Force, has filed a detailed reply. It is their stand that the pensions of the petitioners have already been revised strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and the subsequent Office Memoranda dated 28.01.2013 and 06.04.2016 issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare (DoP&PW), Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, New Delhi. 08. It is submitted by BSF that the petitioners, including Shri Gandharv Singh (petitioner No. 23), Shri Rahmat Ali (petitioner No. 25), Shri Bishan Dass (petitioner No. 26), and Shri Ganesh Dutt (petitioner No. 27), retired from the BSF in the ranks of Constable/Head Constable in the pre- revised pay scales of 825–1200, 975–1540, and 3200–4900, respectively. Their pensions were duly revised with effect from 01.01.2006 by fixing them in the appropriate pay bands with the corresponding grade pay, as prescribed in the annexures to the aforesaid OMs, without applying pro- rata reduction even where the qualifying service was less than 33 years. In no case was the pension fixed at an amount lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre- revised pay scale from which the petitioners had retired. Special Seal Authorities (SSA) were issued by the Central Pension Accounting Office, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. 09. It is further stated that, in compliance of judicial directions regarding pre-2006 pensioners, the benefit of stepping up of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 SWP No. 1226/2018 (instead of 24.09.2012) has been extended to the petitioners. Their cases were thereafter revised again as per OMs dated 28.01.2013 and 06.04.2016, without applying pro-rata reduction even where the qualifying service was less than 33 years. Upon implementation of the VII CPC, the pensions of the BSF petitioners were fixed in the pay matrix at the relevant levels and indices corresponding to their last pay scale and grade pay. The contention of the petitioners that their pension was ought to have been fixed with reference to grade pay of Rs. 2400/- is specifically denied. According to the respondents, as per the fitment tables notified by the Ministry of Finance on 30.08.2008, Head Constables of the relevant pay scales are entitled only to Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/-, Constables to Rs. 1800/-, and Naiks to Rs. 1900/-, therefore, the claim of the petitioners for Rs. 2400/- is untenable. 10. It is accordingly the stand of the respondents that the pensions of the petitioners have already been revised both under the 6th CPC and subsequently under the 7th CPC, in strict compliance with the applicable rules, notifications, and judicial pronouncements. The revision has also been carried out in accordance with CAT directions, and Special Seal Authorities (SSA) were issued for each petitioner to formalize the revised pensions. It is submitted that the pension of all CRPF petitioners was revised in accordance with the recommendations of the VI CPC and the applicable Office Memoranda dated 28.01.2013 and 06.04.2016, with effect from 01.01.2006. 11. Respondent No.4-CRPF has asserted that the revision of pension complies with the provisions regarding pre-2006 pensioners. The revised pension has been fixed in the corresponding pay bands and grade pay, as prescribed under the government orders, without exceeding the prescribed SWP No. 1226/2018 limits, and no pro-rata reduction has been applied. Specific cases of CRPF petitioners, such as Om Parkash (Petitioner No. 1), Pritam Singh (Petitioner No. 2), Bua Ditta (Petitioner No. 3), Jagattar Chand (Petitioner No. 7), Ram Pal (Petitioner No. 8), Suresh Lal (Petitioner No. 10), Chajju Ram (Petitioner No. 11), and Sukhdev Singh (Petitioner No. 12), have been considered individually. For each, the revised pension has been calculated based on the last pay drawn, the corresponding pay band under VI/ VII CPC, and the relevant Government OMs. 12. It is submitted that all pension cases of CRPF petitioners have been prepared and authorised correctly, and there is no requirement for any further revision. In essence, the CRPF maintains that the petitioners belonging to their Force have already received all revisions due under the existant rules, and the claims of the petitioners are fully complied with, in accordance with the applicable orders and pay commission recommendations. 13. Respondent No. 5, i.e., the CISF, has filed objections, contending that co-petitioner No. 16 (Ex-HC/GD Surfdin) retired voluntarily on 31.03.2005 (AN) after completing his service satisfactorily. All pensionary benefits due at the time of his retirement have been paid to him. The CISF submits that the revision of pension, in favour of co-petitioner No. 16 has already been carried out in accordance with the 6th Pay Commission and relevant Government Office Memoranda, including OM dated 06.04.2016. Revised pensionary details were issued through PPO No. 232830503064 dated 12.11.2018. The revised pension, including commuted and reduced pension, was fixed in the prescribed pay band (PB-1, GP Rs. 2000), with net qualifying service of 25 years, 8 months, and 26 days. Further, the pension was revised under the 7th Pay Commission as per Government instructions, SWP No. 1226/2018 and a revised PPO No. 23283050306A3 dated 26.04.2018 was issued. The revised pay and pension were fixed as follows: basic pension Rs. 12,600, commuted pension Rs. 925, reduced pension Rs. 11,675, and family pension at enhanced and normal rates of Rs. 12,600 and Rs. 9,000 respectively. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that various Original Applications were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, inter alia claiming that the revised pension of pre-2006 pensioners should not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale, as reflected in the fitment table issued by the Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 30.08.2008. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, by common order dated 01.11.2011 in O.A. No. 655/2010 and connected matters, directed re-fixation of pension of all pre-2006 retirees with effect from 01.01.2006. The said order was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 1536/2012 and later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 26148/2013. 15. He further argued that in compliance thereof, respondent No. 2 issued O.M. dated 30.07.2015 providing that the pension/family pension of all pre-2006 retirees be revised in accordance with O.M. dated 28.01.2013, with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 24.09.2012. Accordingly, the revised consolidated pension of pre-2006 pensioners was to be fixed at not less than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale, as per the fitment table, even where qualifying service was less than 33 years. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently, argued that it cannot be said that the retirees post January 1, 2006 and pre January 1, SWP No. 1226/2018 2006 are one class for the purpose of retiral pensionary benefits so as to say that such a classification was unconstitutional as has been projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has further argued that the judgment relied in case ‘D. S. Nakara & Ors v. Union of India’, AIR 1983 SC 130 has not been followed by the subsequent benches of Supreme Court in other judgments. He has relied upon a judgment passed by a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court reported as 2024:PHHC:125506-DB in some clubbed cases with of ‘R S Arneja & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors’ being the lead case, wherein, after consideration of the law laid down in the case of D S Nakara (supra), the Division Bench has held that pensionary benefits for pre January 2006 retirees cannot be equated with post January 2006 retirees as they belong to distinct classes with the former not being in service during pay revision. He further argued that the pre 2006 and post 2006 retirees do not constitute a homogenous class as pre 2006 retirees, as such, the petition filed by the petitioner herein is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 17. Petitioners have retired/superannuated from various Forces like CRPF, BSF, CISF of Central Armed Police Forces before 01.01.2006. Their case is that the Central Government accepted the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006, which was made applicable to the employees of aforementioned services and the retirees for their pension. They claim that their pension should have been revised at par with those officials who retired after 01.01.2006 in their ranks, and they are aggrieved that the respondents declined to grant them an equivalent pension. Thus, the short question that lays for consideration of this Court is ‘whether retirees pre and post 01.01.2006 are entitled to equal pension’. SWP No. 1226/2018 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in D S Nakara’s case (supra) wherein the Apex Court held that liberalized pension schemes become operative to all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules irrespective of the date of retirement. The Apex Court held that for being eligible for liberalized pension scheme application of such a criteria is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. It was further held that employees who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired thereafter form one class of pensioners, the attempt to classify them into separate classes/groups for the purposes of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia which had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 19. However, Nakara’s case was distinguished by the Apex Court in ‘State of Punjab & Ors. V. Buta Singh & Anr’, (2000) 3 SCC 733, ‘State of Punjab & Anr. V. J. S. Gupta & Ors’, (2000) 3 SCC 736; ‘State of West Bengal & Anr. V. WB Government Pensioners Association & Ors.’ (2002) 2 SCC 179 and ‘State of Punjab & Ors. V. Amarnath Goyal & Anr.’ (2005) 6 SCC 754. The judgment of the Apex Court in Nakara’s case (supra) was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classification of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criteria made applicable was ‘being in service and retiring subsequently to this specified date’. 20. The Apex Court in ‘Indian Ex Service League v. Union of India’, (1991) 2 SCC 104 distinguished the decision in Nakara’s case (supra) and held that ambit of that decision cannot be enlarged to cover all claims by the SWP No. 1226/2018 retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree irrespective of the date of retirement even though the emoluments for the purposes of computation of pension to be different. The Apex Court in ‘KL Rathi v. UOI’, (1997) 6 SCC 7 after referring to its various judgments has held that Nakara’s case (supra) cannot be interpreted to mean that emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same status must be treated to be the same. 21. The 5/6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) analyzed and recommended that the issue of party in pensions is extremely important from the view point of inter-temporal equity and merits a careful examination, devising improvements in pensionary benefits extending them to those who had retired prior to the date from which improvements become effective. In fact, the 3rd CPC took the view that serving government employees and pensioners could not be treated at par as regards grant of DA at the same date. However, a significant change in the paradigm for treatment of pensioners past and future emerged from the judicial pronouncement in Nakara’s case based on which, for the first time improvements in pensioner benefits was extended to pensioners who had retired prior to the date from which improvements become effective. The 5th CPC made a definitive shift in the treatment of past pensioners and a process of bridging the gap in pension of past pensioners set into motion by 4th CPC for grant of additional relief to consolidation of pension needed to be continued so as to achieve complete parity over the period of time. The 5th CPC accordingly recommended that pension of all the pre 1986 retirees may be updated by notional fixation of their pay as on January 1986 by adopting the same formula as far as the serving employees and that the consolidated pension was arrived at was to be SWP No. 1226/2018 not less than 50% of the minimum pay as revised by 5th CPC of the scale of the pensioners at the time of retirement. This principle by which past pensioners were brought to the minimum of the scale which replaced the scale in which the pensioners retired has been termed as modified parity. This consolidated amount of pension was to be the basis for grant of Dearness Relief in future. 22. After Nakara’s case (supra), some of the benches of the Apex Court had followed the same whereas some of the benches distinguished it. Subsequent benches in cases reported as 1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 544; (1997) 2 SCC 343; and (2000) 3 SCC 733, held that the position that emoluments of persons holding the same status who retired after a notified date must be treated to be the same, cannot be accepted. In a case reported as (2003) 3 SCC 736, it was held that for grant of additional benefits that had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for confirmation of additional benefits could not be considered arbitrary. In ‘State of Punjab v. Amarnath Goyal’, (2005) 6 SCC 754, cases on subject were reviewed and it was laid down that Government can make distinction in the matter of payment of pension between two classes of pensioners. 23. The modified principle as recommended by the 5th CPC was accepted by the 6th & 7th CPC as well. The basis for modified parity is that basic pay scale of the retiree would be brought as the minimum of the pay band to which revised pay falls and that what constitute the basic pay scale for calculating the 50% of the relevant emoluments, for calculating pension on which DA shall be granted. In other words it does not allow full parity between the retirees of the pre and post effective date of implementation. The post effective date retirees will have a separate base pension as per the SWP No. 1226/2018 revised pay scales. Conversely, the Government has created two classes of retirees- one belonging to pre specified date and the other to the post specified date that seems to be reasonable classification without violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The principle of modified parity as recommended by the 5th CPC and 6th CPC and also accepted by the Central Government provides that revised pension, in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and grade pay, corresponding to revised pay scale, from which pensioner had retired. 24. In my considered view, in the garb of clarification, respondents wish to interpret pay band and grade pay, held by the retirees on the date of their retirement, to the revised pay band and grade pay. In the considered opinion of this court, this is not permissible in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred hereinabove, more particularly, in case of State of Punjab v. G. L. Gupta, (2000) 3 SCC 736 wherein it has been held that such a classification cannot be stated to be arbitrary and the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in a recent case with lead case as ‘R S Arneja & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Ors,’ 2024: PHHC:125506-DB, that the pensionary benefits for pre-2006 retirees cannot be equated with post-2006 retirees, as they belong to distinct classes. It appears that the idea of the Central Pay Commission for revising pensionary benefits which was implemented by the Central Government by issuance of Government Orders and the Office Memoranda to explain their implementation, was to clearly lay down that the pre-2006 retirees shall be entitled to 50% of the pension of their pay scale and grade pay in the corresponding scale held by them, which cannot be presumed to be in the revised scale as has been tried to be construed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The pre-2006 retirees, as SWP No. 1226/2018 all the petitioners are, are entitled to receive 50% of the pay band and the grade pay of their pay scale, when they retired, disregard of the qualifying service of 33 years, with application of prescribed fitment formula. 25. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners through the medium of the instant petition have misconceived the Central Pay Commission recommendations and the subsequent Government Orders and the Memoranda issued to explain the implementation, to construe that the petitioners having retired from their services prior to 1st of January 2006 are entitled to be placed in the revised pay scale which was granted to the inservice employees of their rank, who retired after 01.01.2006, so as to get the equivalent pension. 26. 26. Viewed thus, the petition is found to be without any merit and substances and is therefore dismissed, along with all connected applications. (M A Chowdhary) Judge Jammu: 25.09.2025 Michal Sharma/Raj Kumar Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No Raj Kumar 2025.09.25 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document