JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY The petitioner has instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a grievance that his pension and other retirement benefits in the form of - [i] Commuted Value of Pension [C.V.P.]; [ii] Death –cum- Retirement Gratuity [DCRG]; and [iii] Leave Encashment Benefits – have not been disbursed in terms of his entitlements under the Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] and Successors Companies, Revised Pay Rules, 2017. 2. The case projected by the petitioner in the writ petition, in brief, is that the Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] was established in 1958 under the Electricity [Supply] Act, 1948. The ASEB used to manage generation, transmission and distribution of powers in the State of Assam as per the duties defined under the Electricity [Supply] Act, 1948. A process of reform was carried out and the ASEB was trifurcated into three new entities viz. [i] Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited [APGCL]; [ii] Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited [AEGCL]; and [iii] Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL]. All the new entities are State Public Sector Enterprises and are inter-alia governed by the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the erstwhile ASEB in the year 1979 as an Assistant Engineer. During the course of his service period in the erstwhile ASEB and thereafter, with the successor entity, Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited [APGCL], he was promoted from time to time. In the year 2016, he was serving in the APGCL in the substantive post/grade of General Manager. By an Officer Order bearing no. ASEB/PLT/438/1979/268 dated 31.03.2016, the petitioner was released from service on 31.03.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. On the date of his retirement on superannuation itself, another Office Order bearing no. MD/APGCL/PEN/M-16/180/23 dated 31.03.2016 was issued whereby sanction was accorded for pension, Commuted Value of Pension [C.V.P.], Retirement Gratuity, Family Pension, etc. in respect of the petitioner. As per the said Officer Order, the petitioner was to be paid pension @ Rs. 24,660/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2016 prior to the date of drawal of 1/3 of C.V.P. and thereafter, @ Rs. 16,440/- per month till his death or restoration of full pension, whichever was earlier. Besides the pension, it was ordered that the petitioner was to be paid C.V.P. of Rs. 9,67,659/- and a retirement gratuity of Rs. 24,660/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2016 prior to the date of drawal of 1/3 of C.V.P. and thereafter, @ Rs. 16,440/- per month till his death or restoration of full pension, whichever was earlier. Besides the pension, it was ordered that the petitioner was to be paid C.V.P. of Rs. 9,67,659/- and a retirement gratuity of Rs. 7,00,000/- as admissible under the Board’s Pension Rules, subject to adjustment of outstanding liability amounting to Rs. Nil as per No Demand Certificate. 2.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that consequent to his retirement on superannuation, the respondent Successor entities had published the Assam State Electricity Board and Successor Companies, Revised Pay Rules, 2017 [‘the Revised Pay Rules, 2017’, for short] by an Office Memorandum bearing no. MD/APDCL/PC/236/2017/45 dated 12.12.2017, whereby, the pay and allowances of the employees and pensioners of erstwhile ASEB and its Successor companies i.e. APDCL, APGCL and AEGCL came to be revised. Provisions have been made in the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 for revision of pay and allowances and pension of the employees and pensioners of erstwhile ASEB and three Successor companies including the petitioner. After coming into force of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017, the petitioner has been paid pension @ Rs. 61,160/- per month and the said figure has been worked out by the respondent authorities in terms of Clause 32[1][a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. Aggrieved by the calculation worked out for pension in such manner by resorting to Clause 32[1][a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition contending that the pension and other retirement benefits in respect of the petitioner in the form of C.V.P., DCRG, Leave Encashment Benefits, etc. ought to have been worked out in terms of Clause 4[a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. 3. Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.R. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 5; Mr. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, AEGCL for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondent no. 4. 4. Mr. 3. Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.R. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 5; Mr. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, AEGCL for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondent no. 4. 4. Mr. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the Office Order dated 31.03.2016, the petitioner stood retired on superannuation after rendering 36 years of service in the erstwhile ASEB first and thereafter, in APGCL. It is his submission that the procedure laid down in Clause 32[1][a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner as the said procedure is made for the pre-01.04.2016 existing pensioners. He has contended that the petitioner has become pensioner only on 01.04.2016 and as such, the petitioner was in service on 31.03.2016 on which date he also stood retired. By referring to Clause 4[a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017, Mr. Patowary has contended that the petitioner is entitled to receive revised pay as on 31.03.2016 and accordingly, he is entitled to receive revised pension and other retirement benefits on that basis. 5. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 5 has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 5 to submit that the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 came into force on 01.04.2016 vide Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2017. Clause 4[a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 has specifically referred to the categories of employees to whom the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 are applicable. It is his submission that the pay of an employee who was in service on 01.04.2016 is to be considered for Revised Pay on the basis of his pay drawn up to 31.03.2016 only. In the case in hand, the petitioner retired from service as General Manager from APGCL on 31.03.2016 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be in service as on 01.04.2016. As such, there is no question of entitlement of the petitioner so as to claim retirement benefits as per Clause 4[a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. In the case in hand, the petitioner retired from service as General Manager from APGCL on 31.03.2016 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be in service as on 01.04.2016. As such, there is no question of entitlement of the petitioner so as to claim retirement benefits as per Clause 4[a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. Since the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 came into effect from 01.04.2016 only, those employees who continued to hold the services on 01.04.2016 in their respective post/grade were allowed to draw the pay and allowances at the revised rates w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and the revision of pension/family pension earlier w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The case of the petitioner is, therefore, clearly covered by the provisions laid down in Rule 32[1][a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. He has further drawn attention to Clause 26[b] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 to submit that the DCRG of Rs. 15,00,000/- had become effective only on 01.04.2016 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the enhanced gratuity amount as he already stood retired from service on 31.03.2016. The petitioner was rightly paid the gratuity of Rs. 7,00,000/- and no interference is called for as regards the amounts of gratuity paid to the petitioner as well as the other retirement benefits in the form of C.V.P., leave encashment, etc. 6. Mr. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, AEGCL while substantially adopting the submission of Mr. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 5, has stressed on sub-clause [b] of Rule 32[1] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. He has submitted that only those pensioners who retired on or before 31.03.2016 and had the requisite years of qualifying service, would be eligible to draw revised basic pension @ 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale/pay band from which the pensioner had retired. It is his submission that it goes to show that the petitioner is eligible to draw the revised basic pension only on the basis of pre-revised pay scale/pay band from which he had retired on 31.03.2016. The provision contained in sub-clause [b] of Rule 32[1] of the Revised Pay Rule, 2017 makes it clear that Clause 4[a] thereof is not attracted in the case of the petitioner. 7. Mr. The provision contained in sub-clause [b] of Rule 32[1] of the Revised Pay Rule, 2017 makes it clear that Clause 4[a] thereof is not attracted in the case of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, while adopting the submissions of Mr. Das, has submitted that there has to be harmonious construction of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 with the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2017 in so far as the effective date is concerned. He has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, reported in [2003] 3 SCC 57, to submit that the statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the statute should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same statute so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. In this regard, he has submitted that if Clause 2, Clause 4[a] and Clause 32[1][a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 are read together, then only conclusion that can be drawn is that the provisions became effective only from 01.04.2016 and would be applicable as regards the entitlement of the petitioner and in such view of the matter, there is no applicability of Clause 4[a] to the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 in case of the petitioner. He has referred to an Office Memorandum bearing no. FEG.26.2012/29 dated 31.10.2012, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Assam to submit that as the petitioner stood superannuated on 31.03.2016 he was not in service on 31.03.2016. 8. I have given due consideration to the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. 9. From the Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2017 published by the APDCL, it has emerged that the Board of Directors, APDCL took a resolution vide Resolution no. 05 dated 22.11.2017 whereby it decided to revise the pay and allowances of the employees and pensioners of ASEB and its successor companies, that is, APDCL, AEGCL & APDCL, as specified in the provisions made therein. Thereafter, the same had been published in the form of “Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] and Successors Companies, Revised Pay Rules, 2017” [‘the Revised Pay Rules, 2017]. Thereafter, the same had been published in the form of “Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] and Successors Companies, Revised Pay Rules, 2017” [‘the Revised Pay Rules, 2017]. There is no dispute at the Bar that the provisions of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 are made applicable to the employees and pensioners of erstwhile ASEB and its three successor companies, that is, APDCL, AEGCL & APDCL and the petitioner was an employee of AEGCL. 10. Rule 1[ii] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 has provided that the Rules shall be deemed to have come into force on 01.04.2016 in interim. It, thus, goes to show that the benefits under the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 are to be given with effect from 01.04.2016. As per Rule 2, the pay scales, as revised, are as per the enclosed Schedule, Annexure-I, showing the existing Pay Band and Grade Pay and the corresponding revised pay structure consisting of Pay Band and Grade Pay, applicable to a post in the services. As per Rule 3[vii] the Revised Pay Structure in relation to a post/grade specified in Column - 2 of the Schedule - I means the Pay Band and Grade Pay as specified in Column - 5 and 6 against that post/grade. At the time of his retirement on superannuation, the petitioner was holding the post/grade of General Manager which post/grade has figured at Serial no. 20 in the Schedule - I. The Pay Band and Grade Pay of the post/grade of General Manager in the pre-revised scale were Rs. 14,200 - Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 7,400/- respectively, whereas Pay Band and Grade Pay for the post/grade of General Manager were Rs. 42,000 - Rs. 1,16,000/- and Rs. 19,500/- respectively in the Revised Pay Structure. 11. The learned counsel for all the respondents have stressed on Rule 32[1][a]&[b] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 to buttress their point that the petitioner’s case is covered by the said Rule and there is no applicability of Rule 4[a] in his case. Rule 32[1][a]&[b] has provided for the procedure of fitment benefit/revision of pensioner/family pensioners. 12. 11. The learned counsel for all the respondents have stressed on Rule 32[1][a]&[b] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 to buttress their point that the petitioner’s case is covered by the said Rule and there is no applicability of Rule 4[a] in his case. Rule 32[1][a]&[b] has provided for the procedure of fitment benefit/revision of pensioner/family pensioners. 12. For ready reference, Rule 32[1][a]&[b] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 is quoted hereinbelow in its entirety :- Rule 32 - Fitment Benefit/Revision of Pensioner/Family Pensioners : [1] The Pension/Family pension of the existing pensioners/family pensioners i.e. pre 01.04.2016 pensioners/family pensioners shall be revised w.e.f. 01.04.2016 in the following procedure :- [a] The revised basic pension/family pension on 01.04.2016 of the pensioners/family pensioners who were drawing pension/family pension on 31.03.2016 shall be fixed by multiplying the existing pension/family pension by a factor of 2.48 and the amount so computed shall be rounded-of to the next multiple of Rs. 10/-. The basic pension for all purposes will be w.e.f. 01.04.2016. [b] The revised basic pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale/pay band from which the pensioner had retired. This is applicable to those pensioners who retired on or before 31.03.2016 and after completing 25/33 years of qualifying services as the case may be. 13. As per sub-rule [1] of Rule 32, the pension/family pension of the existing pensioners/family pensioners i.e. pre - 01.04.2016 pensioners/family pensioners shall be revised w.e.f. 01.04.2016 in terms of the procedure laid down by the sub-clauses [a] and [b]. One of the issues that has arisen for consideration is whether the procedure laid down in subclause [a] and/or sub-clause [b] can be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is settled that an employee retires from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation. It is evident from Rule 34 of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 that the age of superannuation of an employee of the erstwhile ASEB and its successor companies including the AEGCL, is 60 years. By the Office Order bearing no. ASEB/PLT/438/1979/268 dated 31.03.2016, the petitioner was released from service of the AEGCL at 05-00 p.m. on 31.03.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. By the Office Order bearing no. ASEB/PLT/438/1979/268 dated 31.03.2016, the petitioner was released from service of the AEGCL at 05-00 p.m. on 31.03.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. Since the meaning of ‘pre’ is ‘previous to; before’, the procedure laid down in sub-clauses [a] and [b] of Rule 32 can be made applicable in respect of pension of the existing pensioners of pre - 01.04.2016, meaning thereby, the same can be made applicable in respect of those existing pensioners who had already acquired the status of pensioner previous to or before 01.04.2016. By no stretch, ‘pre - 01.04.2016’ can be equated with ‘01.04.2016’. 14. The revised basic pension in respect of the petitioner, for which he is aggrieved, has been worked by following the procedure laid down in sub-clause [a] of Rule 32[1]. According to the petitioner, his basic pay till 31.03.2016 under the pre-revised scale was Rs. 49,320/- and by multiplying the amount of pension @ Rs. 24,660/-, as reflected in the Office Order dated 31.03.2016 by the factor, 2.48 the same has been worked out at Rs. 61,157/- and by rounding it of to the next multiple of Rs. 10/-, the petitioner is being disbursed a basic pension @ Rs. 61,160/- under the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 at present. 15. At this stage, it also apposite to refer to the provision contained in Rule 4[a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 which pertains to application of the revised pay. Rule 4[a] has laid down that all employees who were in services on 31.03.2016 or who may have been appointed on or after 01.04.2016 shall draw pay in revised pay structure [Pay Band with Grade Pay] applicable to the posts/grades which they have been holding or to which they may have been appointed, as the case may be. Rule 4[a] has, thus, made reference to two categories of employees. All employees who were in service on 31.03.2016 would be eligible to draw pay in the revised by structure [Pay Band with Grade Pay] applicable to the posts/grades which they had been holding. Similarly, all the employees who have been appointed on or after 01.04.2016, shall draw in the revised pay structure [Pay Band with Grade Pay] applicable to the posts/grades to which they may have been appointed. 16. Similarly, all the employees who have been appointed on or after 01.04.2016, shall draw in the revised pay structure [Pay Band with Grade Pay] applicable to the posts/grades to which they may have been appointed. 16. In view of the settled position of law that the employee retires from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation and from the Office Order dated 31.03.2016 by which the petitioner was released from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years at 05-00 p.m. on 31.03.2016, there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner was in service on 31.03.2016 and he also retired from service on 31.03.2016. In other words, the petitioner was in service and had also retired from service on 31.03.2016. This Court is, thus, of the view that as the petitioner had not acquired the status of pensioner on 31.03.2016 as on that date, he was in service and had also retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation at 05-00 p.m. He had acquired the status of pensioner only from and on 01.04.2016. The view gets also fortified from the Office Order bearing no. MD/APGCL/PEN/M-16/80/23 dated 31.03.2016 which recorded that the petitioner retired on 31.03.2016 and the petitioner was sanctioned pension @ Rs. 24,660/- per month only w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The provisions of Rule 32[1] speak about the existing pensioners who acquired the status of pensioner pre - 01.04.2016, that is, previous to or before 01.04.2016 and such a status can be acquired only on or before 31.03.2016. 17. By referring to the decision in Hindustan Bulk Carriers [supra], it has been sought to be urged by Mr. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL that there should be a harmonious construction of the provisions of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 and the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2017. The said decision pertains to different provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and by referring to different provisions of the said statute, it has been observed therein that the provisions of one section of the statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them. Thus, a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a ‘useless lumber’ or ‘dead letter’ is not a harmonized construction. It has been observed that to harmonise is not to destroy. Thus, a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a ‘useless lumber’ or ‘dead letter’ is not a harmonized construction. It has been observed that to harmonise is not to destroy. It has, thus, been sought to argue in the case in hand that if the provisions of Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2017 are read together with the Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] and Successors Companies, Revised Pay Rules, 2017, the only interpretation that would emerge is that the benefit of revised can be disbursed to the petitioner only in terms of the pre-revised pay structure. 18. There is no dispute to the ratio observed in Hindustan Bulk Carriers [supra], which made reference to different provisions of a statute for a harmonious construction. In the case in hand, it has been canvassed that there should be harmonious construction of the provisions of two different sets of rules, that is, the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2017 and the Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] and Successors Companies, Revised Pay Rules, 2017. Rule 2[b] of the Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2017 has specifically made it clear that the said Rule shall not be applicable to the officers and staffs of public undertakings of the Assam Government, unless specifically extended under express order of the Government. In the absence of any express order of the Government, the provisions of Assam Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 2017 cannot be read for the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] and Successors Companies, Revised Pay Rules, 2017. It is the harmonious interpretation of different provisions of Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] and Successors Companies, Revised Pay Rules, 2017 which can be made following the ratio laid down in Hindustan Bulk Carriers [supra]. 19. The Revised Pay Rules, 2017 have also provided that for revisions in Death -cum- Retirement Gratuity [Rule 26]; and Commutation Value of Pension [Rule 31]. 19. The Revised Pay Rules, 2017 have also provided that for revisions in Death -cum- Retirement Gratuity [Rule 26]; and Commutation Value of Pension [Rule 31]. For example, Rule 26 providing for ‘Death –cum- Retirement Gratuity’ has mentioned that for Death –cum- Retirement Gratuity [DCRG], provisions of Rule 50[1] of the Central Civil Services Rules are applicable to the employees of the successor companies and [a] the amount of gratuity will be one-fourth of the monthly emoluments of an officer/employee for each completed six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 16 ½ times of the monthly emoluments; and [b] the limit of DCRG has been enhanced from the existing rate of Rs. 7,00,000/- [Rupees seven lacs] to Rs. 15,00,000/- [Rupees fifteen lacs] and the enhanced limit of DCRG shall be effective from 01.04.2016. Similarly, the benefits under the heads of Commuted Value of Pension [C.V.P] and Leave Encashment are made relatable to the revised pay structure under the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. 20. From a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017, more particularly, Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 4[a] and Rule 32[1][a] & [b] together, this Court is of the Order downloaded on 08-08-2024 04:26:51 AM unhesitant view that the petitioner who was in service on 31.03.2016 and who retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation also on 31.03.2016, cannot be categorized and bracketed in the category of existing pensioner on 31.03.2016 as he acquired the status of pensioner only on and from 01.04.2016. In such view of the matter, the benefits under the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 cannot be worked out by resorting to Rule 32[1][a] & [b] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 but his entitlements are to be worked out in terms of the provisions laid down in Rule 4[a] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. Rule 4[a] has made the revised pay structure [Pay Band with Grade Pay] applicable to an employee who was in service on 31.03.2016 and the petitioner falls in that category of employee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities shall have to work out the entitlements of the petitioner as pensioner under different heads like pension, Commuted Value of Pension [C.V.P.], Death –cum- Retirement Gratuity, leave encashment benefits, etc. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities shall have to work out the entitlements of the petitioner as pensioner under different heads like pension, Commuted Value of Pension [C.V.P.], Death –cum- Retirement Gratuity, leave encashment benefits, etc. and if after such exercise, the petitioner is found entitled for an enhanced amount that what had been worked out by the Office Order no. ASEB/PLT/438/1979/268 dated 31.03.2016 and/or by any exercise by resorting Rule 32[1][a]&[b] of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017, the same should be disbursed to the petitioner in an expeditious manner. It is observed that the entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed within 6 [six] weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 2. 21. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition stands allowed, to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.