SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a retired Sainik School employee seeking refixation of his pension on the basis of a Grade Pay of Rs 4,800 instead of Rs 4,600, holding that pre-2006 retirees are governed by specific Central Government orders and cannot claim parity with employees who retired after implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC).
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the petition, held that the pension of employees who retired before the implementation of the Sixth CPC must be revised in accordance with the specific Office Memoranda issued by the Central Government, rather than the pay scales applicable to employees who remained in service after the revised pay structure came into force.
The court also rejected the petitioner’s contention that the Office Memoranda issued by the Centre were not automatically applicable to Sainik School employees, observing that the Sainik Schools Society had adopted the Sixth CPC on the same pattern as applicable to Central Government employees.
The judgment was pronounced on October 30, 2026, in WP(C) No. 1619/2023, filed by Raghuvir Singh Panwar against the Union of India and others. The petition had been reserved for judgment on October 14.
The petitioner had challenged an order dated November 4, 2022, through which his representation seeking refixation of pension had been rejected.
According to the petition, Panwar was appointed as Hostel Superintendent at Sainik School, Nagrota, on May 2, 1982. He subsequently served as Assistant Master, TGT (Senior Scale), before retiring on resignation on September 30, 2003.
At the time of his retirement, he was drawing a pay scale of Rs 6,500-200-10,500 under the Fifth Central Pay Commission.
The petitioner contended that an error had occurred while fixing his pension following the implementation of the Sixth CPC. He argued that the corresponding pay scale for Assistant Master, TGT Senior Scale, under the Sixth CPC was Rs 9,300-34,800 with a Grade Pay of Rs 4,800, but his pension had wrongly been calculated by taking a Grade Pay of Rs 4,200 instead.
He submitted that the initial error had subsequently affected the refixation of his pension under the Seventh CPC as well.
The petitioner also challenged the reduction of his pension on a pro-rata basis because he had not completed 33 years of qualifying service at the time of retirement.
He relied upon the Government of India’s Office Memorandum dated April 6, 2016, which provided that the revised consolidated pension of pre-2006 pensioners should not be lower than 50 per cent of the minimum of the pay band and Grade Pay, without pro-rata reduction, even where the employee had completed less than 33 years of qualifying service.
In their response, the Union of India and other respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the pension of pre-2006 retirees drawing the Fifth CPC pay scale of Rs 6,500-200-10,500 had been revised in accordance with subsequent Central Government instructions.
The respondents explained that the Government of India, through an Office Memorandum dated September 1, 2008, had decided to extend the benefits of the Sixth CPC recommendations to pre-2006 pensioners with effect from January 1, 2006.
Subsequently, an Office Memorandum dated January 28, 2013, provided for revision of the pension of such retirees in the pay band of Rs 9,300-34,800 with a Grade Pay of Rs 4,200.
However, the position was modified through another Office Memorandum dated July 9, 2019, under which the Grade Pay of Rs 4,600 was to be taken into account for pension revision of pre-2006 retirees who had retired in the Fifth CPC pay scale of Rs 6,500-200-10,500.
The respondents further submitted that the petitioner’s pension had since been refixed by applying the revised Grade Pay of Rs 4,600 and that his grievance regarding pro-rata reduction had also been addressed by sanctioning full pension following the Office Memorandum dated April 6, 2016.
After hearing advocate Satinder Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, and Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, assisted by Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Sharma, Justice Dhar examined the applicable government orders and the petitioner’s service and pension records.
The court observed that Panwar had retired before the implementation of the Sixth CPC recommendations and their adoption by the Sainik Schools Society. He, therefore, could not claim pension revision in the corresponding pay scale applicable to employees who retired after the revised pay structure came into force.
“In the case of pre-2006 retirees, their pension is to be revised in accordance with the specific orders issued by the Government of India from time to time,” the court held.
Referring to the Office Memorandum dated January 28, 2013, the High Court noted that its Annexure, at Serial No. 13, specifically provided for revision of pension of pre-2006 retirees who had been drawing the Fifth CPC pay scale of Rs 6,500-200-10,500 by applying the Grade Pay of Rs 4,200.
The court further noted that the subsequent Office Memorandum dated July 9, 2019, modified the earlier position by providing for Grade Pay of Rs 4,600 instead of Rs 4,200 for such pensioners.
Justice Dhar held that since the petitioner had retired before the Sixth CPC came into effect, his pension was required to be refixed in accordance with these specific government instructions and not on the basis of the pay structure applicable to employees who were still in service when the Sixth CPC was implemented.
“The petitioner having retired prior to the year 2006, cannot claim parity with those who have retired after the year 2006,” the court observed.
The High Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Sainik Schools Society was an independent body functioning under the supervision of the Ministry of Defence and that Central Government pension-related instructions would not automatically apply to its employees unless separately adopted.
The petitioner had argued that the Office Memoranda issued by the Centre revising the pension of pre-2006 retirees were not applicable to Sainik School employees because the Society had not adopted them.
Rejecting the contention, the court referred to a communication dated April 23, 2009, through which the Sainik Schools Society had adopted the Sixth CPC recommendations for its employees.
The court noted that the communication specifically provided for implementation on the same pattern as applicable to Central Government employees.
“I am afraid, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit,” Justice Dhar observed, adding that any Office Memorandum or instruction issued by the Government of India concerning implementation of the Sixth CPC consequently became automatically applicable to employees and pensioners of Sainik Schools.
On the petitioner’s second grievance concerning pro-rata reduction, the court took note of the respondents’ submission that the issue had already been resolved by granting him the benefit of full pension.
Finding no merit in either of the petitioner’s contentions, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Advocate Satinder Gupta appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, assisted by Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Sharma, represented the respondents.
