ORDER : 1. Brief facts which are required to be noted for adjudication of this case are that the petitioner retired as an Administrative Officer on 31st December, 1996. He put in 36 years of service and had sought voluntary retirement from 1st January, 1997. He was, therefore, relieved on 31st December, 1996 from the post of Administrative Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India. 2. The dispute as put up by the petitioner in person before the Court is that at the time of retirement, the pension payable to him was Rs.6406/-, whereas he was sanctioned Rs.4660/-and he has, therefore, suffered loss of Rs.1746/- + Dearness Relief. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent/s had in their reply admitted that the petitioner was granted pension inclusive of Dearness Relief of Rs.6406/-per month. It is further stated that the respondent/s had in their reply admitted that as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995, the pension is calculated on the basis of 50% of the average emoluments. In terms of Rule 35(2) of the Rules of 1995, the pension shall be calculated at 50% of the average emoluments i.e. the basic pay plus Dearness Allowance as drawn at the time of his voluntary retirement. On 31st December, 1996, the petitioner’s average emoluments were Rs.12,812/-(basic pay Rs.9200/-plus DA Rs.3612/-), therefore, he was rightly granted pension of Rs.6406/-, in terms of Rule 35(2) of the Rules of 1995. The petitioner, therefore, submits that there was no occasion to pay him reduced pension of Rs.4,660/- alone. 4. The petitioner in person submits that the he had filed earlier a writ petition bearing No.6676/1998 wherein the aforesaid reply has been filed by the Corporation, therefore, in no circumstances, the pension could have been paid at Rs.4660/-and the respondents’ action was unjustified and he has a right to receive the correct pension as admitted by the respondents earlier. It is submitted that the petitioner has been harassed on account of earlier litigation. 5. In an additional affidavit filed along with application, the petitioner has further submitted that as on 31st December, 1996, the basic pay of petitioner was Rs.9320/-(Rs.8970/-+ Rs.350/-). It is submitted that the petitioner has been harassed on account of earlier litigation. 5. In an additional affidavit filed along with application, the petitioner has further submitted that as on 31st December, 1996, the basic pay of petitioner was Rs.9320/-(Rs.8970/-+ Rs.350/-). Under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner was informed that on the basis thereto, his pension was fixed at Rs.4660/-, whereas the respondents did not include the DA which was payable to the petitioner and was part of his salary as last drawn. It is stated that calculation of 10 months average emoluments came to Rs.12,812/- and thus, his pension comes to Rs.6,406/-. 6. An affidavit was directed to be filed on behalf of the LIC whereupon Mr. B.P. Kataria, Manager O.S. (Divisional Manager) of LIC, DO-I, Jaipur has filed an affidavit and it is stated that as per this calculation-sheet, the petitioner was getting basic pay of Rs.4,520/-plus fixed personal allowance of Rs.130/-and DA on Index No.1148 came to Rs.3603/-and thus, his total pension was payable to him at Rs.8,253/-per month. Subsequently, a Notification was issued on 18.7.1996 and in pursuance of notification, the DA upto Price Index 1148 was directed to be merged in the basic pay. The department revised the pension of the petitioner and other similarly situated retirees. The basic pay was although at Rs.8970/-plus Rs.230/-fixed personal allowance, total comes to Rs.9,200/-as the figure of Rs.9200/-was arrived at after merging DA upto 1148 Point Index. Subsequently, the additional benefit w.e.f. 1.7.1996 was paid as Rs.2000/-per month. The calculation-sheet has been placed on record for perusal of this Court and accordingly on total amount of Rs.9200/-, the pension has been fixed as Rs.4,600/-. Later-on, on account of addition of Rs.200/-, it was increased to Rs.4,660/-. 7. The petitioner has submitted written submissions wherein it is submitted that the calculation-sheet and the affidavit are false and mention as under: “(i) Firstly when the Petitioner is being paid the Basic Pension of Rs.4660=00 the figures given in this para 4520/-plus 130 do not work out to Rs.4,660=00. It is not known wherefrom this figure 4620=00 has been taken. The pay scale of Administrative Officer, in which the Petitioner was at that time was Rs.8,970=00 plus Rs.230=00 AS Computer Allowance, which comes to be Rs.9,200. This is totally false; (ii) Secondly the pay scale of Adm. It is not known wherefrom this figure 4620=00 has been taken. The pay scale of Administrative Officer, in which the Petitioner was at that time was Rs.8,970=00 plus Rs.230=00 AS Computer Allowance, which comes to be Rs.9,200. This is totally false; (ii) Secondly the pay scale of Adm. Officer was Rs.5980-230-8970 then wherefrom this figure of Rs.4520/-has come and has been paid; (iii) It is further stated in this para that the total pension payable was calculated at Rs.8253/-per month. This again is a false statement, since at no stage during the earlier period the Petitioner was ever paid the total pension of Rs.8253=00. (iv) The figures given in the affidavit and the forged calculation sheet nowhere tally.” 8. The respondents have now raised preliminary objections that the writ petition would be hit by the principle of constructive res-judicata. Earlier two writ petitions bearing Nos.6676/1998 and 654/2007 were decided by this Court on 12.01.2010 and the present relief was not claimed therein. It is stated that the petitioner is disentitled for filing another writ petition. 9. In written submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments: (i) State Bank of India Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 73 . (ii) Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited Vs. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 625 . (iii) The VIth Income-tax Officer, City Circle II, Bangalore Vs. K.Y. Pillaiah & Sons., reported in AIR 1968 SC 260 . (iv) Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior & Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 88 . (v) G.K. Dudani & Ors. Vs. S.D. Sharma & Ors., reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 239. (vi) Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Anr., reported in (2016) 6 SCC 515 . (vii) K.B. Sharma & Anr. Vs. U.O.I., reported in (1998) 9 SCC 38 . (viii) Freudenberg Nok Plant 1 & 2 Workers Union Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in 2020 (4) LLN 268 (P& H). 10. A look at the written submissions filed earlier by the LIC in Writ Petition No.6676/1998 wherein the petitioner had prayed for giving him additional stagnation increments, show that the respondent-LIC mentioned as under:- “9. That the scales of pay and allowances of the Class I Officers, had been revised vide notification dated 16-07-96 w.e.f 01-08-92. 10. A look at the written submissions filed earlier by the LIC in Writ Petition No.6676/1998 wherein the petitioner had prayed for giving him additional stagnation increments, show that the respondent-LIC mentioned as under:- “9. That the scales of pay and allowances of the Class I Officers, had been revised vide notification dated 16-07-96 w.e.f 01-08-92. The said notification also provides that notwithstanding the aforesaid date of revision of scales of pay and allowances it was open to a Class I officer to opt for a date other then the said date of revision, but not later then 18-07-96 to be governed by the revised scales of pay and allowances. According to rule 35(2) of the Pension Rules, pension is calculated on the basis of 50% of the average emoluments i.e. average of the pay drawn by an employee during the last ten months of his service. In terms of Rule 35 of the Pension Rules, the basic pension of an employee shall be calculated at 50% of his average emoluments i.e. basic pay plus DA at the time of his Voluntary Retirement. On 31-12-96 his average emoluments was Rs.12,812/ (basic pay Rs.9,200/ & DA Rs.3612/), therefore, was granted pension of Rs.6,406/ (consisting of basic pension and DA), in terms of Rule 35(2) of the Pension Rules. (Relevant Para 21-B of the parawise reply of reply by the Respondents may kindly be seen).” I have considered the submissions as well as the aforesaid facts and carefully examined the record. 11. At the outset, it would be appropriate to deal with the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of writ petition on the basis of principle of constructive res-judicata. In the matters relating to claim of pension and wrongful calculation of pension, in the opinion of this Court, an individual cannot be denied to file writ petition before the Court for claiming his rightful pension even if he has earlier filed writ petition for grant of pension. Subsequently, if an individual finds that his pension has been wrongly reduced, he cannot be ousted on the principle of constructive res-judicata as it is a new cause of action. To claim one’s rightful pension has been held to be a fundamental right of an individual as against the State (Ref.: DS Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported in 1983 (1) SCC 305 ). 12. To claim one’s rightful pension has been held to be a fundamental right of an individual as against the State (Ref.: DS Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported in 1983 (1) SCC 305 ). 12. Secondly, the objection is found to be frivolous inasmuch as the judgments passed in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner both by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench, have been reversed by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 515 . Thus, issue involved was different. In the earlier writ petition, the issue involved was with reference to the resolution passed by the Board amending the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1955 upgrading the basic pension to AICPI 174 points and 100% DA neutralization. The Single Bench of this Court observed that such a resolution had not been approved by the Union of India, the respondent-Corporation preferred D.B. Special Appeal (W) Nos.493 and 494 of 2010 wherein the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order: “6. We are of the view that whatever grievance with regard to the implementation of the Board’s Resolution dated 24-11-2001 is concerned, the same can be raised by the Union of India who has chosen not to file any appeal in the matter and this can easily be considered as an approval of the said Resolution of the Board dated 24-11-2001 which was allegedly pending for nine years. The Board of LIC, who is the appellant before us against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, had itself taken a decision to remove the disparities and the discrimination with regard to the payment of dearness allowance and pension to the retired employees under its Resolution of the Board dated 24-11-2001, which was in public interest. It could not and should not have filed the present appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has provided an umbrella to the appellant for the implementation of the decision of the Board dated 24-11-2001 on the categorical statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and not assailed in appeal by the Union of India.” 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (supra) has set aside the aforesaid observations as under: “26. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the Corporation shall pay 40% as per Para 3A of the Appendix to each of the employees within six weeks and shall file an affidavit before the High Court of Delhi to the said effect. The Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in the Courts so that it can pay the employees who have retired. Needless to emphasize, the aforesaid payment shall be subject to final results in the writ petitions. 27. It is a case where we are constrained to speak that the end does not bring the finality. We say so as Mr. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General would contend that the parties to the litigation shall only get the benefit and not the similarly placed persons in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 07.05.2015. It does not require Solomon's wisdom to state that an interim order is an interim order and does not have any impact at the time of final verdict especially in such a situation and, therefore, we direct that it shall be applicable to the similarly placed persons. 28. As we are transferring the cases to Delhi High Court, the Registry of the High Courts of Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan shall send the papers to the High Court of Delhi within three weeks hence. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi is requested to constitute a Bench within four weeks from today. We grant liberty to the writ petitioners to file requisite amendments, if so advised. Counter affidavit to the same shall be filed by the contesting parties within three weeks from the date of filing the amendments. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petitions by the end of August, 2016. We ingeminate that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to any of the aspects of the matter, except what we have finally concluded, namely, that the resolution could not have been given effect to without framing a rule by the Central Government. We ingeminate that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to any of the aspects of the matter, except what we have finally concluded, namely, that the resolution could not have been given effect to without framing a rule by the Central Government. Till the matter is decided by the High Court of Delhi, no other High Court shall proceed with the similar matters, as it is desirable that a singular judgment is passed so that the validity of the same can be adjudged.” 14. Thus the issue involved in the earlier writ petitions in no manner connects with the present case which is solely filed with the prayer to get the correct calculation of pension in terms of last pay drawn. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/s would therefore have no application on the facts of this case. The preliminary objection is accordingly rejected. 15. Coming on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to first quote the relevant provisions necessary for adjudication of this case. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1995”) came into force w.e.f. 1st November, 1993, however, the pensioners, who retired on or after 1st January, 1986, were covered subject to giving their option and refunding employer’s part of contribution to Provident Fund with interest and medical examination as per the Rules of 1995. Rule 2 is the definition clause. Rule 2 is the definition clause. It would be appropriate to quote Rule 2(d) and (o) of the Rules of 1995 for the purpose of the present case: “(d) “average emoluments” means the average of the pay drawn by an employee during the last ten months of his service; (o) “pay” includes,- (a) in relation to an employee who has retired or died on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 but before the 1st day of November, 1993,- (i) the basic pay including the stagnation increments if any; and (ii) all allowances counted for the purposes of making contribution to the Provident Fund and for the payment of dearness allowance; (b) in relation to an employee who retires or dies while in service on or after the 1st day of November, 1993,- (i) the basic pay including the stagnation increments if any; and (ii) all allowances counted for the purposes of making contribution to the Provident Fund and for the payment of dearness allowance; and (iii) fixed personal allowance not exceeding the last increment in the scale of pay; and (iv) dearness allowance calculated upto Index number 1148 in the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960-100.” Rule 35 & Rule 38 of the Rules of 1995 are reproduced as under:- “35. Amount of Pension. -(1) In respect of employees who retired between the 1st day of January, 1986 but before the 31st day of July, 1987, basic pension and additional pension will be updated as per the formula given in Appendix-III. (2) In the case of an employee retiring in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules or of the Staff Regulations after completing a qualifying service of not less than thirty three years the amount of basic pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of the average emoluments. (3) (a) Additional pension shall be fifty per cent of the allowances drawn by an employee during the last ten months of his service; (b) no dearness relief shall be paid on the amount of additional pension. Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-rule "allowances" means allowances which are admissible to the extent counted for the following purposes only, namely:- (i) making contributions to the Provident Fund; (ii) grant of house rent allowance; (iii) payment of gratuity; and (iv) re-fixation of salary on promotion. Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-rule "allowances" means allowances which are admissible to the extent counted for the following purposes only, namely:- (i) making contributions to the Provident Fund; (ii) grant of house rent allowance; (iii) payment of gratuity; and (iv) re-fixation of salary on promotion. (4) Pension as computed being the aggregate of sub-rules (2) and (3) above shall be subject to the minimum pension as specified in these rules. (5) An employee who has commuted the admissible portion of his pension as per the provisions of rule 41 of these rules shall receive only the balance of pension, monthly. (6) (a) In the case of an employee retiring before completing a qualifying service of thirty-three years, but after completing a qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under sub-rules (2) and (3) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than the amount of minimum pension specified in these rules. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the ordinary rate of family pension which would have been payable to his family in the event of his death while in service. (7) The amount of pension finally determined under this rule shall be expressed in whole rupee and where the pension contains a fraction of a rupee, it shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee. 38. Determination of the period of ten months for average emoluments. - (1) The period of the preceding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date of retirement. (2) In the case of voluntary retirement the period of the preceeding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date on which the employee voluntarily retires. (3) In the case of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement or termination of service the period of the preceding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date on which the employee is dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or terminated by the Corporation. (3) In the case of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement or termination of service the period of the preceding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date on which the employee is dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or terminated by the Corporation. (4) If during the last ten months of the service an employee had been absent from duty on extraordinary leave on loss of pay or had been under suspension and the period whereof does not count as service, the aforesaid period of extraordinary leave or suspension shall not be taken into account in the calculation of the average emoluments and an equal period before the ten months shall be included.” 16. The Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 1996 which were notified on 18th July, 1996. The said rules were brought into force as on 1st day of August, 1992. 17. As per aforesaid rule, the schedule of pay scale shows that the post of Administrative Officer which the petitioner held was revised as Rs.5980-230-8970 w.e.f. 1st August, 1992. 18. The respondents have asserted that the petitioner retired on 31.12.1996 and the DA as on 1148 Point Index works out to Rs.3603/-which is calculated on the basis of old scale of Rs.4520/-and fixed in the new scale from 01.07.1996 Rs.8970/-after adding the DA. 19. The pay scale of the petitioner as on 01.04.1992 could not have been made a basis for calculation of DA on 1148 Point Index and the entire calculation is misleading and goes contrary to the Rules. It is extremely surprising that the LIC changed its stand in the affidavit filed now which had already been taken in the earlier writ petition. No reason is coming forward nor there is any document to show that the petitioner was getting Rs.4520/-as initial salary in June, 1996. As per findings arrived, the affidavit is apparently misleading and contrary to the Rules. 20. No reason is coming forward nor there is any document to show that the petitioner was getting Rs.4520/-as initial salary in June, 1996. As per findings arrived, the affidavit is apparently misleading and contrary to the Rules. 20. On the other hand, as per document on record in writ petition filed by the respondent/s with their reply (Annexure-R2), the petitioner was paid Rs.11630.90 in April, 1996, in May, 1996, he was paid Rs.11578.30/-, in June, 1996 he was paid Rs.11578.30/-, in July, 1996, he was paid Rs.11578.30/-, in August, 1996, he was paid Rs.13,540/-, in September, 1996 Rs.13,551.70/-, he was paid in October, 1996 Rs.13849.90/-, in November, 1996, he was paid Rs.14104.70/-, in December, he was paid Rs.14104.70/-. Thus, if his salary as in December, 1996 and 10 months is calculated, it cannot be in any manner to be as Rs.4520/-. Admittedly, the petitioner had reached the highest i.e. Rs.8970/- since last four years in terms of Rule 38(2). 21. In terms of Rule 38(2) of the Rules of 1995, the determination of period of 10 months for average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date on which the employee voluntarily retires. Since the petitioner has attained the stagnation for the last 10 months from the date of his voluntary retirement i.e. 31st December, 1996, the basic pay would remain constant i.e. Rs.8970/-+ Rs.230 + Rs.120 that is the average basic pay would come to Rs.9320/-. The respondents have rightly calculated and placed before this Court in the earlier writ petition that average emoluments of the petitioner would thus come to Rs.9200/-+ DA as existing and calculated from 1992 to 1996 in the new pay scale which would come to Rs.3612/-on the basis of average emoluments of Rs.12812/-. The pension of the petitioner which has to be basic pension plus DA comes to Rs.6406/-and the same was therefore rightly calculated earlier. There was no occasion to revise the said pension by the respondents. The affidavit filed is misleading. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to deny the petitioner benefits and also make him suffer on account of earlier litigation which resulted in directions from the Supreme Court as noticed above. 22. A person who approaches the Court for claiming his rights cannot be made to suffer by reducing his pension. The pension is neither a bounty nor a charity as held by the Supreme Court from time to time. 22. A person who approaches the Court for claiming his rights cannot be made to suffer by reducing his pension. The pension is neither a bounty nor a charity as held by the Supreme Court from time to time. 23. It is accordingly held that the petitioner has been wrongly denied his rightful claim to pension of Rs.6406/-per month. The reduced amount is treated to be wrongful gain and withholding of such amount wrongfully would invite interest. 24. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 1st January, 1997 @ Rs.6406/-per month. The difference of the amount which has not been paid, shall be paid as arrears of pension along with interest @12% per annum with quarterly rests i.e. pension arrears shall be paid with compound interest to be calculated on each quarter of a year. The petitioner would also be entitled to receive arrears along with aforesaid interest as per revised pension from time to time, if any. The amount shall now be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month henceforth. The cost is assessed at Rs.40,000/-to be paid along with arrears to the petitioner. 25. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs as above. 26. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.