Supreme Court of India
D.K. JAIN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official Association, Tamil Nadu & Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Civil Appeal Nos.8848-8849 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8850-8852 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8853-8855 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8856 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8857 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8858 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8859 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8860 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8861-8863 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8864 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8865 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8866 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8868 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No.8869 of 2012
Decided On : 17-01-2013
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14- Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Payment – Employment - Government of Tamil Nadu has been issuing executive order from time to time to determine composition of allowances to be added to pay for quantifying wages for calculating pension - It is case of appellants that State Government followed consistent practice of treating ‘dearness allowance as dearness pay for computation of pension and other retrial benefits - Illustratively court are informed that by Government Order State Government included dearness allowance at rate then prevalent as component of wages for calculating average emoluments for determining pension for those who retired on or after - Instant Government Order was applicable to employees who retired between was not extended benefit of dearness allowance drawn by him at time of his retirement while computing his pension –Held, Court in State of Punjab - In third cited case employees both of Central Government as also of State Governments of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh who had retired prior sought death cum retirement gratuity up to increased limit - Claim raised by employees was rejected in some cases whereas in some other cases Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court took view that benefit of increased quantum of death cum retirement gratuity Court in Gandhi’s case supra examined an issue where increased death cum retirement gratuity could only be claimed by employees who had retired after cutoff date – Death cum retirement gratuity is onetime benefit whereas pension endures to retired employees for entire length of their lives - Pension is therefore continuing benefit – Death cum retirement gratuity is onetime benefit disbursed in accordance with to rules prevalent at time of retirement - Herein also issue consideration was not different measures for computing continuing retrial benefit based on any cutoff date Court in Gandhi’s case supra examined an issue where increased death cum retirement gratuity could only be claimed by employees who had retired after cutoff - Death cum retirement gratuity is onetime benefit whereas pension endures to retired employees for entire length of their lives - Pension is therefore continuing benefit – Death cum retirement gratuity is onetime benefit disbursed in accordance with to rules prevalent at time retirement - Herein also issue consideration was not different measures for computing continuing retrial benefit based on any cutoff date - Court are therefore of view that instant judgment is also not relevant for adjudication of controversy in hand - In view of above court are satisfied that none of judgments relied upon by counsel for respondents have any bearing to controversy in hand – Appeal allowed
Judgment :-
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu has been issuing executive order from time to time to determine the composition of allowances to be added to pay for quantifying wages for calculating pension. It is the case of the appellants, that the State Government followed a consistent practice of treating ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ for the computation of pension and other retiral benefits. Illustratively, we are informed, that by a Government Order dated 11.3.1970 the State Government included ‘dearness allowance’ at the rate then prevalent, as a component of wages for calculating average emoluments for determining pension, for those who retired on or after 26.2.1970. The instant Government Order dated 11.3.1970 was applicable to employees who retired between 26.2.1970 and 1.10.1970.
2. One R. Narasimachar who had retired on 21.11.1969 was not extended the benefit of ‘dearness allowance’ drawn by him at the time of his retirement, while computing his pension. This denial was because the Government order dated 11.3.1970, extended the benefit referred to above only to such employees who had/would retire on or after 26.2.1970. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid denial, he filed Writ Petition no.1815 of 1986 contending, that his pension should have been calculated by taking into consideration ‘dearness allowance’ which was being drawn by him at the time of his retirement, as ‘dearness pay’. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court) allowed the aforesaid writ petition on 15.3.1990 by holding, that the State Government was not right in restricting the applicability of the Government Order dated 11.3.1970 only to employees who retired between 26.2.1970 and 1.10.1970. The learned Single Judge directed, that ‘dearness allowance’ which the appellant was drawing, at the time of his retirement, be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating his pension. On 26.2.1991, the writ appeal filed by the State Government against the order dated 15.3.1990 (passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition no.1815 of 1986), was dismissed.
3. Based on the aforesaid judgment dated 15.3.1990, which the State Government accepted, a clarificatory Government Order dated 4.12.1991, was issued. Under the Government Order dated 4.12.1991, even for employees who had retired prior to 1.12.1966, ‘dearness allowance’ actually drawn by them, at the time of their retirement,would be taken as ‘dearness pay’ for purposes of calculating pension. For employees retiring between 1.12.1966 and 25.2.1970, ‘dearness allowance’ upto the level obtaining in December, 1966 would be taken into consideration as ‘dearness pay’ for determining pension (and gratuity). It is therefore submitted, that ‘dearness allowance’ became a component of pension, for all employees who had retired upto 25.2.1970.
4. In order to place the sequence of facts in the correct perspective, it was further brought to our notice that the Government order dated 11.3.1970 was clarified by a subsequent letter dated 4.12.1991. As per the aforesaid order and letter, Government servants retiring from service on or after 26.2.1970, and upto 1.10.1970, ‘dearness allowance’ up to the level obtaining in December, 1966, was to be reckoned as ‘dearness pay’ for purposes of pension (and gratuity). Thereupon, through a subsequent Government order dated 4.12.1991, directions were issued for extending the benefit contemplated by the Government order dated 11.3.1970 and the Government’s letter dated 4.2.1991, even to those who had retired prior to 26.2.1970.
5. A Government order dated 4.12.1991 was then brought to our notice. It provided, that notional revised pension payable from 1.6.1988 would be encashable only with effect from 1.12.1991. It also provided, that those Government servants who had retired prior to 26.2.1970 but had died before 1.12.1991, would be ineligible for the benefits contemplated for retirees prio
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.