2006(9) Supreme 685
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Accountant General of Orissa & Anr. - Appellants
versus
R. Ramamurthy & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5269 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21647-648 of 2005)
Decided on 29-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : A. Sharan, A.S.G., Dr. Shyamlha Pappu, J.V. Suryanarayana, Sr. Advocates, Asheesh Jain, Ms. Rekha Pandey and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, P.V. Sundarajan, Ms. Shipra Ghose, Ms. Arundhati Mukherjee, R. Krishnaa Morthi, Goodwill Indeevar, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar and Ms. Bina Madhavan (for M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co.) Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.
2. Challenge in these appeals is to a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.8532 of 2003. The said writ petition had been filed by the appellants questioning correctness of the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (in short the CAT) in O.A.No. 1345 of 2001. The basic issue which arose for consideration in the writ petition was "what is the mode of calculating of restoration of pension in respect of employees covered by Rule 37A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short the Rules). According to the appellants, a conjoint reading of Rules 37 and 37A as operated upto 31.3.1995 has not been kept in view. The High Court modified the order of the CAT and held that in a case where an employee had commuted minimum permissible pension i.e. 1/3 and even where lesser portion is commuted, the pro rata commuted portion has to be deducted from the basic pension to arrive at restorable pension, but however, he will get dearness relief, interim relief etc. on full basic pension.
3. The High Court arrived at the aforesaid conclusion after considering Rules 37 and 37A.
4. Challenge in these appeals is on the ground that the High Court was not correct in calculating the commuted amount of pension to be restorable pension without taking into consideration the relevant pension rules and the Office Memorandum No.4/59/97-P&PW(D) dated 14.7.1998, Office Memorandum No.2/1/87-PIC-1 dated 16.4.1987 and Office Memorandum No.45/86/97-P&PW(A) Part II dated 27.10.1997.
5. According to the appellants, these Memorandas laid down the tables according to which the computation has to be arrived at as issued by the Department of Pension.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the judgment in question.
7. Rules 37 and 37A read as follows:
"Rule 37: Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body:-
(1) A Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a Corporation or Company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government or in or under a Body controlled or financed by the Central Government or a State Government shall be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and subject to sub-rule (3) he shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits which he may have elected, or deemed to have elected, and from such date as may be determined, in accordance with the orders of the Central Government applicable to him.
EXPLANATION: Date of absorption shall be:
(i)in case of Government employee joins a Corporation or a company or body on immediate absorption basis the date on which he actually joins that corporation or company or body;
(ii)in case a Government employee initially joins a corporation or company or body on foreign service terms by retaining a lien under the Government the date from which his unqualified resignation is accepted by the Government.
(2) The provisions of sub-rule (1) shall also apply to Central Government servants who are permitted to be absorbed in joint sector undertakings, wholly under the joint control of Cenra1 Government and State Governments / Union Territory Administrations or under the joint control of two or more State Government/Union Territory Administration.
(3) Where there is a pension scheme in a body controlled or financed by the Central Government in which a Government servant is absorbed, he shall be entitled to exercise option either to count the service rendered under the Central Government in that body for pension or to receive pro rata retirement benefits for the service rendered under the Central Government in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government.
EXPLANATION: Body means autonomous body or statutory body:-
RULE 37-A:- Payment of lump sum, amount to persons on absorption in or under a Corporation, company or body:
(1) Where a Gov
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.