Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1329 (MAD)

Union of India v. Registrar

2012-03-13

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Judgment (ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 901 of 2010, the Union of India has come with the present writ petition. 2. The first respondent retired from service as Junior Accounts Officer on 26.9.1979. Before his retirement, he was working on deputation with Ministry of Finance whereunder he was drawing deputation allowance of 20% of his basic pay. He was drawing pension of Rs. 905/- from 26.9.1979, which was reduced to Rs. 755/-from 1.1.1986 in view of the implementation of IV Pay Commission, wherein 20% of special pay was not taken into account. It was the contention of the first respondent before the Tribunal that Ministry of Finance vide OM dated 12.02.1971 had clarified that emoluments means pay defined under FR (9)(2)(1) and deputation duty allowance is covered under the said definition and hence, he is entitled for the enhanced pension. Therefore, he preferred Original Application before the Tribunal seeking for a direction to fix his pension considering the special pay of 20%. 3. The stand of the Department before the Tribunal was that as per Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules, pension includes only basic pay drawn and not the special pay, personal pay, deputation (duty) allowance, etc.. 4. After hearing both sides and on going through the documents available on record, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application by holding that the orders issued by the Department after his retirement would take effect only prospectively and not retrospectively and his pension cannot be cut at a later date by applying the principles laid down in OM issued on 19.3.1999. The said order is in challenge in this Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the very same contentions raised before the Tribunal, would submit that as per Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the pay includes only basic pay drawn by him but does not include special pay, personal pay, deputation (duty) allowance etc. and, therefore, the deputation (duty) allowance drawn by the first respondent cannot be taken into account for calculation of notional pay for revision of pension consequent to IV Central Pay Commission orders dated 19.3.1999. 7. and, therefore, the deputation (duty) allowance drawn by the first respondent cannot be taken into account for calculation of notional pay for revision of pension consequent to IV Central Pay Commission orders dated 19.3.1999. 7. On hearing the contentions and from the materials on record, it is seen that the first respondent, who retired as Junior Accounts Officer, at the time of his retirement, was working on deputation under the Ministry of Finance and was drawing deputation (duty) allowance at 20%. It is not in dispute that the first respondent, after his retirement, was drawing pension of Rs. 905/-. The orders passed by the petitioner reducing the pension to Rs.755/- were based on the OM dated 19.3.1999, after implementation of the IV Central Pay Commission. Conceptually, pension is a reward for the past service rendered by an employee. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and the quantum of pension. The Tribunal has rightly pointed out that the orders issued by the petitioner could take effect only prospectively and not retrospectively i.e., the orders could not take away the benefits with retrospective effect as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhaaiah [ (1997) 6 SCC 623 ]. Since the decision of the Tribunal has been rendered to meet substantial justice, we are not inclined to interfere with the same and it is, accordingly, confirmed dismissing the Writ Petition. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.