Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, S/o Late Shri Ram Saran Lal Asthana - Petitioner
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14446/2010
Decided On : 27-05-2021
Rules of 1995 – Rules 38 ,35 (2),41 and (3) - Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 1996 - Rule 38(2). - Right to Information Act, - Voluntary retirement - Service - Petitioner retired as an Administrative Officer on - He put in of service and had sought voluntary retirement from - He was, therefore, relieved on from post of Administrative Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India - Dispute as put up by petitioner in person before Court is that at time of retirement, pension payable to him was whereas he was sanctioned and he has, therefore, suffered loss of Dearness Relief –
Finding of the Court:
Accordingly held that petitioner has been wrongly denied his rightful claim to pension of per month. - Reduced amount is treated to be wrongful gain and withholding of such amount wrongfully would invite interest - Respondents are directed to release pension of petitioner per month - Difference of amount which has not been paid, shall be paid as arrears of pension along with interest per annum with quarterly rests pension arrears shall be paid with compound interest to be calculated on each quarter of a year - petitioner would also be entitled to receive arrears along with aforesaid interest as per revised pension from time to time if any - Amount shall now be paid to petitioner within a period of one month henceforth -
Result: writ petition allowed
ORDER :
1. Brief facts which are required to be noted for adjudication of this case are that the petitioner retired as an Administrative Officer on 31st December, 1996. He put in 36 years of service and had sought voluntary retirement from 1st January, 1997. He was, therefore, relieved on 31st December, 1996 from the post of Administrative Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India.
2. The dispute as put up by the petitioner in person before the Court is that at the time of retirement, the pension payable to him was Rs.6406/-, whereas he was sanctioned Rs.4660/-and he has, therefore, suffered loss of Rs.1746/- + Dearness Relief.
3. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent/s had in their reply admitted that the petitioner was granted pension inclusive of Dearness Relief of Rs.6406/-per month. It is further stated that the respondent/s had in their reply admitted that as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995, the pension is calculated on the basis of 50% of the average emoluments. In terms of Rule 35(2) of the Rules of 1995, the pension shall be calculated at 50% of the average emoluments i.e. the basic pay plus Dearness Allowance as drawn at the time of his voluntary retirement. On 31st December, 1996, the petitioner’s average emoluments were Rs.12,812/-(basic pay Rs.9200/-plus DA Rs.3612/-), therefore, he was rightly granted pension of Rs.6406/-, in terms of Rule 35(2) of the Rules of 1995. The petitioner, therefore, submits that there was no occasion to pay him reduced pension of Rs.4,660/- alone.
4. The petitioner in person submits that the he had filed earlier a writ petition bearing No.6676/1998 wherein the aforesaid reply has been filed by the Corporation, therefore, in no circumstances, the pension could have been paid at Rs.4660/-and the respondents’ action was unjustified and he has a right to receive the correct pension as admitted by the respondents earlier. It is submitted that the petitioner has been harassed on account of earlier litigation.
5. In an additional affidavit filed along with application, the petitioner has further submitted that as on 31st December, 1996, the basic pay of petitioner was Rs.9320/-(Rs.8970/-+ Rs.350/-). Under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner was informed that on the basis thereto, his pension was fixed at Rs.4660/-, whereas the respondents did not include the DA which was payable to the petitioner and was part of his salary as last drawn. It is stated that calculation of 10 months average emoluments came to Rs.12,812/- and thus, his pension comes to Rs.6,406/-.
6. An affidavit was directed to be filed on behalf of the LIC whereupon Mr. B.P. Kataria, Manager O.S. (Divisional Manager) of LIC, DO-I, Jaipur has filed an affidavit and it is stated that as per this calculation-sheet, the petitioner was getting basic pay of Rs.4,520/-plus fixed personal allowance of Rs.130/-and DA on Index No.1148 came to Rs.3603/-and thus, his total pension was payable to him at Rs.8,253/-per month. Subsequently, a Notification was issued on 18.7.1996 and in pursuance of notification, the DA upto Price Index 1148 was directed to be merged in the basic pay. The department revised the pension of the petitioner and other similarly situated retirees. The basic pay was although at Rs.8970/-plus Rs.230/-fixed personal allowance, total comes to Rs.9,200/-as the figure of Rs.9200/-was arrived at after merging DA upto 1148 Point Index. Subsequently, the additional benefit w.e.f. 1.7.1996 was paid as Rs.2000/-per month. The calculation-sheet has been placed on record for perusal of this Court and accordingly on total amount of Rs.9200/-, the pension has been fixed as Rs.4,600/-. Later-on, on account of addition of Rs.200/-, it was increased to Rs.4,660/-.
7. The petitioner has submitted written submissions wherein it is submitted that the calculation-sheet and the affidavit are false and mention as under:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
