SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 735

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
S. Manickavasagam - Petitioner
Versus
Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 9866 of 2012
Decided On : 17-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.V.S. Giridhar for M/s. P.V.S. Giridhar & Sai Asso., Advocates.
For the Respondents: Dr. D. Simon, Central Govt. Standing Counsel.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pension payable to a retired Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal should be calculated by taking into account the total service rendered, and the aggregate pension should be restricted to the pension prescribed for a High Court Judge for the relevant point of time.

Headnote:

Pension Calculation - Central Administrative Tribunal - Rule 8 - [Rule 8] - The court discussed Rule 8 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 and held that the pension payable to the petitioner for the service he has rendered at Central Administrative Tribunal should be calculated by taking into account the total service rendered by the petitioner as a Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal as six years instead of five years. The aggregate pension payable to the petitioner shall be restricted to the pension prescribed for a High Court Judge for the relevant point of time, which was Rs.40,000/- between 01.01.2006 till 31.12.2015 and further revised by implementing the 7th Pay Commission Recommendation with effect from 01.01.2016.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him an aggregate pension of Rs.40,000/- as monthly pension, by fixing his pension for services rendered as Member, Central Administrative Tribunal at Rs.6,500/-, with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pension arising therefrom, with interest @ 12% per annum.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's service at the Central Administrative Tribunal should be calculated as six years instead of five, and the aggregate pension payable to the petitioner should be restricted to the pension prescribed for a High Court Judge for the relevant point of time.

Issues: Dispute arose regarding the calculation of pension payable to the petitioner for the service he rendered at Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's service at the Central Administrative Tribunal should be calculated as six years instead of five, and the aggregate pension payable to the petitioner should be restricted to the pension prescribed for a High Court Judge for the relevant point of time.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to calculate the pension payable to the petitioner by taking into account the total service rendered by the petitioner as a Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal as six years instead of five years and to pay the petitioner an aggregate pension of Rs.40,000/- as monthly pension, with arrears and interest.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner aggregate pension of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) as monthly pension, by fixing his pension for services rendered as Member, Central Administrative Tribunal at Rs.6,500/-, with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pension arising therefrom, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accrual of such payment till the date of actual payment upon such arrears.

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner aggregate pension of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) as monthly pension, by fixing his pension for services rendered as Member, Central Administrative Tribunal at Rs.6500/-, with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pension arising therefrom, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accrual of such payment till the date of actual payment upon such arrears.

2. The short facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

    (i) The petitioner entered service in the Customs and Central Excise Department after he was selected by the Union Public Service Commission and had been appointed to such service on 01.11.1971. Before he joined the service in the Customs and Central Excise Department, he had rendered service in the Army as Commissioned Officer and therefore, he was given seniority with effect from 1966 batch and his services were counted for pension purpose with effect from 14.02.1965.

(ii) In the said service in the Customs and Central Excise Department, the petitioner had been given various promotions and he reached the level of Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. While he was working in that post, his scale of pay was Rs.22400-525-24500 and with that pay scale in the capacity as Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, he retired from service voluntarily on 09.12.1998 before superannuation and since he retired voluntarily on 09.12.1998, before which, he was already selected and appointed to the post of Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chennai Bench. Immediately i.e. on the next day of his voluntary retirement in the erstwhile service as Chief Commissioner, he joined in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench as Member on 10.12.1998. In that capacity as Member of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, he served till 19.09.2004 and on attaining or completing the age of 62 years, he retired from service from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai on 19.09.2004. Therefore, he has rendered five years and 9 months service between 10.12.1998 and 19.09.2004. Accordingly, after retirement, the pension already calculated and paid to the petitioner for his service rendered at Customs and Central Excise Department had been calculated at the rate of Rs.11,200/- per month and thereafter, for the service he rendered at Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, which is a second pension, for which, he is eligible to be calculated and paid a sum of Rs.1,800/- per month therefore, altogether an aggregate pension of Rs.13,000/- was paid.

(iii) In this context, it is to be noted that, as per the relevant rule governing the pension of a retired Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the total aggregate pension of any such Member retired from Central Administrative Tribunal service shall not exceed the pension, during the relevant point of time, being paid to a retired High Court Judge and in this context, since the pension payable to a retired High Court Judge was it was Rs.13,000/-, the petitioner-s pension also accordingly was fixed at Rs.13,000/- that means Rs.11,200/- pension for the service rendered by him in Customs and Central Excise Department and Rs.1,800/- for the service, he has rendered as Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal put together Rs.13,000/-

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top