Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. (Oral):

Were the respondents who were in service till December 31, 1995, entitled to the payment of retrial benefits at the rates as prevalent on that day or rates as revised with effect from January 1, 1996? The Tribunal has upheld the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It has taken the view that the two officials had become pensioners on January 1, 1996 and were, thus, entitled to the benefit of revision. The Union of India etc. challenge the order. Has the Tribunal erred? First, the facts may be noticed.

2. The two respondents were working in the Telecom Department on the posts of senior Section Supervisor and Section Supervisor respectively. They had continued in service till December 31, 1995. They were paid pension with effect from January 1, 1996.

3. The Fifth Pay Commission recommended the revision of pension and other retrial benefits. In pursuance to these recommendations, the Government of India issued two separate orders on October 27, 1997. The orders regulated the grant of pension etc. to the Central Government employees who were governed by the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The method of fixation of emoluments, pension, gratuity etc. was laid down.

4. The two respondents were not given the benefit of the revision of pension etc. on the ground that they had retired on Dec. 31, 1995. The orders provided the benefit only to those who had retired on Jan. 1. 1996. Consequently, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that their pension and other retrial benefits were to be calculated in accordance with the two circulars issued by the Government on October 27, 1997. Copies of these circulars were produced as Annexures A-1 and A-2 respectively.

5. The Department contested the claim. It was pleaded that the benefit was only admissible to the persons who had retired on or after January 1, 1996. The two respondents had actually retired on December 31, 1995. Thus, the Department claimed that they were not entitled to the benefit.

6. The matter was examined by the Tribunal. It found that the officers had continued in service till December 31, 1995. They had become pensioners on January 1, 1996. Thus, they were entitled to the benefit of the revision of pension etc.. Consequently, their petition was allowed. A copy of the order passed by the Tribunal is at Ext.P3. Aggrieved by this order, the Department has filed the present writ petition.

7. Mr. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the last working day of an employee is the date of his retirement. The two respondents had worked in the Department till December 31, 1995. Thus, they had retired on that day. Consequently, the benefit of revised rates of pension etc. as granted to persons retiring on or after January 1, 1996 is not admissible in their case. On the other hand, Mr. Nair, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has contended that the two employees had actually served the Department till the midnight of December 31, 1995. They were paid their full salary for that day. They had become pensioners only on January 1, 1996. Thus, the date on which they become entitled to pension is the date of their actual retirement. On this basis, the counsel submits that the benefit of the two circulars issued by the Government vide letters dated October 27, 1997 has been rightly granted to them by the Tribunal.

8. In view of the contentions as raised by the learned counsel, the short question that arises for consideration is: Does a person retire on the last working day or the day after?

9. The term "retirement" has not been defined in the rules. However, according to Black's Law Dictionary (7th edition) “retirement” means:

"Voluntary termination of one's own employment or career, especially upon reaching a certain age"

In the case of civil servants, the normal age of retirement is 55 years or 58 years. In the case of the Central Government employees, at the relevant ti