Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. NAVEEN RAO, P. SREE SUDHA, JJ.
Union of India and Others – Petitioners
Versus
M.A. Veerabhadra Rao S/o M.V. Sastry – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6003 of 2019
Decided On : 28-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Deputation by Union Public Service Commission - Gazetted Cadre post - Retirement on attaining age of superannuation - Respondent was working as Traffic Inspector, a post in scale he was taken on deputation by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as Assistant Director which is Group-A Gazetted Cadre post in the pay band - Period of deputation was for three years UPSC notified repatriation of respondent w.e.f. afternoon which was his date of retirement on attaining age of superannuation - On last day of his service while working in UPSC, respondent was drawing pay - Certificate to this extent was issued by UPSC - Railways issued pension payment order treating the last pay drawn by respondent Not satisfied with the monthly pension determination in manner, first respondent submitted representation to the Divisional Railway Manager revise the monthly pension based on the last pay drawn in UPSC – Held, Employee was appointed as Clerk in the Railways. He was deployed to construction organization - There he was promoted as Senior Clerk and further promotion as Office Superintendent in which capacity he retired from service. While in service, his pay was revised upwards taking due note of said promotion - Holding that his pay was wrongly fixed with reference promotion to ex-cadre post, pay fixation was reviewed and fixed at lower stage as applicable to cadre post - Court have gone through the decisions relied by learned counsel for petitioners. There is no quarrel to the proposition that if an employee is working in any other organization outside his regular employment, such assignment is called as deputation. There is no iota of doubt that first respondent was on deputation to UPSC issue for consideration is not on status of the first respondent while working in UPSC, but whether employer was right in ignoring the last pay drawn by first respondent while working in UPSC - First respondent was not repatriated and joined in the parent unit. On the day of his retirement he was sought to be repatriated - By time he was relieved his service came to an end on account of attaining the age of superannuation - There was no occasion to report to the employer - Proposition relied upon by the learned counsel would apply if the employee joined back in his parent organization, and he was given suitable posting – Court’s opinion that first respondent is entitled to revision of his retirement benefits and monthly pension based on the last pay drawn by the first respondent on the date of his retirement as paid to him by UPSC - Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Railways assail the decision of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad dated 14.12.2018 in O.A. No. 21/50/2015. By this decision, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and issued directions.
2. Shorn of details, facts to the extent relevant are as under:
3. The Railways issued pension payment order on 30.09.2011 by treating the last pay drawn by respondent as Rs. 25,830/-. Not satisfied with the monthly pension determination in the above manner, first respondent submitted representation to the Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad, on 04.11.2011 to revise the monthly pension based on the last pay drawn in UPSC. The decision of Railways rejecting the request of first respondent was communicated vide Orders dated 27.11.2012. The escalation of grievance was not fruitful and a reply to this extent was communicated to the first respondent vide proceedings dated 23.07.2014.
4. Aggrieved thereby, first respondent filed the instant O.A. Taking due note of definition of ‘emoluments’ in Rule 49 of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 (the Rules), Para-1303 of IREL and the clarification issued by the Chief Personnel Officer (4th petitioner herein), the Tribunal found fault with the petitioners in not treating the pay drawn in UPSC as last pay drawn while fixing first respondent monthly pension and allowed the O.A. The Tribunal issued consequential directions. Railways challenge the decision of the Tribunal.
5. By relying on Rule 49(a) [Emoluments: The expression: (a) “emoluments” for the purpose of calculating various retirement and death benefits, means the basic pay as defined in clause (i) of rule 1303 of the Code which a railway servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death: Provided that the stagnation increment shall be treated as emolument for calculation of retirement benefits] of the Rules, Rule 1303 (i) [(F.R.9) (21) (a) - Pay: Pay means the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as: (i) the pay other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre] of IREC on what is meant to be emoluments and pay, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that whatever may be the pay drawn by the first respondent in UPSC, respondent’s emoluments to determine pension has to be based on the pay he would have drawn in the Traffic Inspector cadre. She therefore justified the decision of petitioners and contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in directing the petitioners to take the last pay drawn in UPSC.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on State of Punjab and Others vs. Inder Singh and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 372 and Union of India and Others vs. Bhanwar Lal Mundan, (2013) 12 SCC 433 to contend that that the post held or pay drawn while on deputation has no relevance in parent service.
7. According to learned counsel for 2nd respondent, an employee can be held as working in foreign service only if pay of a Government Servant is drawn from any source other than consolidated fund. Whereas, pay and allowances of employees working in UPSC are chargeable to consolidated fund. Thus, his tenure in UPSC c
Pension calculations for deputationists must exclude deputation allowances, relying solely on average emoluments from the parent bank as per applicable regulations.
Point of Law : A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution.
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
