The calculation of the commutation amount should be based on the basic pay as on the date of superannuation and the relevant commutation factor. Failure to consider the proviso (b) to Rule 6 and Rule 8 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 may result in an incorrect calculation of the commutation amount.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

1. The challenge in these petitions is to an order dated August 27, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 4518/2018 and O.A. No. 4706/2018, whereby both the OAs, preferred by the petitioner with reference to calculation of `commutation of pension., were dismissed.

2. In brief, petitioner superannuated from the post of Additional Controller (Admn.) in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400 - 67,000 + Grade pay of Rs.8,900/- from the respondent organization i.e. NTRO on June 30, 2014, after rending service for 39 years 11 months and 12 days. Provisional pension was sanctioned in view of three disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of superannuation. Petitioner became entitled for payment of DCRG, Commutation of Pension and Regular Pension on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings on July 25, 2018, wherein penalty was imposed for withholding of 10%, 20% and 10% of monthly pension for a period of 2 years, 5 years and 1 year, respectively.

3. As per the petitioner, the genesis of the dispute lies in the action of the respondent in illegally deducting Rs.6,03,190/- from Commutation of pension of Rs.12,88,604/- sanctioned vide order No. VI/A&A/03/PEN/95/2014/946 dated August 16, 2018, from pension for the period July 1, 2014 to July 31, 2018, in violation of Rule 6(1)(b) of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

4. The aforesaid action of the respondent was initially challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A. No. 3653/2018 before the Tribunal, wherein vide order dated September 26, 2018, the representation of the petitioner dated August 17, 2018 was directed to be decided by respondent by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that the direction of the Tribunal was followed by order No.V(B)/Grp-A/19015/PF(29)/2005-3967 dated November 01, 2018 sanctioning the under-paid amount of Rs.6,03,190/-, but the same was subsequently backed out by respondent vide new order No. V(B)/Grp-A/19015/PF(29)/2005-4480 dated November 26, 2018 on the ground that commutation of pension is received as requested by the petitioner vide application dated October 15, 2018.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the commutation of pension is to be calculated in accordance with the Rules and the commutation calculated on the basis of application dated October 15, 2018 is in violation of Rule 6(1)(b) of the Rules and to the disadvantage of the petitioner.

It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commutation of pension has been made in violation of Rule 6(1)(b) read with Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules and no effective hearing was given to the petitioner in this regard and neither any reference has been made to the relevant rules. Further reference has been made to judgment dated June 16, 2022 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 4578-4580/2022 titled as `Krishna Rai (Dead) vs. Banaras Hindu University'.

7. The stand of the respondent as reflected in the counter affidavit and also referred in the impugned order may be further noted:

"4.2 Counsel for the respondents further drew our attention to summary of this case as stated by them in the counter affidavit which are reproduced as under: