S. Banerjee v. Union of India and Ors.

DUTT, J. The petitioner was the Additional Registrar of this Court. His normal date of retirement was March 31, 1987. He, however, sought for voluntary retirement from the service of this Court and on his application in that regard, the following order dated December 6, 1985 was communicated to him by the Registrar of this F Court: "OFFICE ORDER The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India has accepted the notice of Shri S. Banerjee, Offg. Additional Registrar G (Permanent Deputy Registrar), seeking voluntary retire­ ment from service under the provisions of Rule 48A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and has permitted Illm to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court of India with effect from the forenoon of January l, 1986." H It is clear from the order extracted above that the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986. After the retirement of the petitioner, the Fourth Central Pay Commission (for short 'Pay Commission') gave its report recommend­ ing the revision of salaries and pension of the Government employees. It is not disputed that the above recommendations of the Pay Commis­ sion have been accepted by the Government and that the benefit thereof is also available to the employees of this Court. Paragraph 17 .3 of Chapter 17 of Part II at page 93 of the Report of the Pay Commis­ sion provides as follows: "17 .3 In the case of employees retiring during the period January 1, 1986 to September 30, 1986, Government may consider treating· the entire dearness allowance drawn_ by them up to December 31, 1985 as pay for pensionary benefits." The petitioner claimed the benefit of the recommendation of the Pay Commission as contained in the said paragraph 17.3, but it was,not allow~d on the ground that he did not, as he was not entitled to, draw salary for January 1, 1986 in view of the proviso to rule 5(2) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, hereinafter referred to as E 'the Rules'. Rule 5(2) reads as follows: "5(2). The day on which a Government servant retires or is retired or is discharged or is allowed to resign from service, as the case may be, shall be treated as his last working day. The date of death shall also be treated as· a f working day. Provided that in the case of a Government servant who is retired pre-maturely or who retires voluntarily under clause (j) to (m) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules or Rule 48 (or Rule 48-A) as the case may be, the G date of retirement shall be treated as a non-working day." ' At the hearing of the writ petition, it has also been vehemently urged on behalf of the respondents that as in view of the proviso to rule 5(2) of the Rules, the date of retirement of the petitioner should be treated as a non-working day or, in other words, as the petitioner was B not entitled to the salary for the day of his retirement, he was not S. BANERJEE v. U.0.l. [DUIT, J.J 565 entitled to the benefit of the recommendation of the Pay c·ommission A as contained in paragraph 17.3 of the report extracted above. Under paragraph 17.3, the benefits recommended will be avail­ able to employees retiring during the period, January 1, 1986 to September 30, 1986. So the employees retiring on January 1, 1986 will be entitled to the benefit uqder paragraph 17.3. The question that B arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner has retired on January 1, 1986. We have already extracted the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985 whereby the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986. It is true that in view of the proviso to rule 5(2) of the Rules, the petitioner will not C be entitled to any salary for the day on which he actually retired. But, in our opinion, that has no bearing on the question as to the date of retirement. Can it be said that·the petitioner retired on December 31, 1985? The answer must be in the negative. Indeed, Mr. Anil Dev Singh, learned ·counsel ap(learing on behalf of the respondents, frankly conceded that the petitioner could not be said to have retired D on December 31, 1985. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had retired from the service of this Court on December 31, 1985. Then it must be held that the petitioner had retired with ~ effect from January 1, 1986 and that is also the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985. It may be that the petitioner had retired with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986 as per the said order of this E Court, that is to say, as soon as January 1, 1986 had commenced the petitioner retired. But, . nevertheless, it has to be said that the petitioner had retired on January 1, 1986 and not on December 31, 1985. In the circumstances, the petitioner comes within the purview of paragraph 17. 3 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission. --, After the conclusion of the hearing of the writ petition, an addi­ tional affidavit purported to have been affirmed by Mr. P.L. Sakarwal, the Director (Justice) of the Department of Justice. In paragraph 8 pf the affidavit the deponent has craved leave of this Court to file this additional .ffidavit. It does not appear from the copy of the purported additiona1 affidavit whether it has been affirmed or not inasmuch as no G date of affirmation has been mentioned therein. Be that as it may, a photocopy of the Office Memorandum dated April 14, 1987 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pt:nsions & Pensioners' Welfare has been annexed. Ii is submitted in the additional affidavit that the pension of Government servants retiring between 1.1.1986 and 30.6.1987 is to be governed in terms of H . - paragraphs 10.1, 10.2 and 11 of the said Office Memorandum. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner had ceased to be in the employment of the Supreme Court with effect from 1.1.1986 (F .N.) and, accordingly, the said Office Memorandum is not applic­ able to the petitioner. Paragraph 3.1 of the Office Memorandum provides, inter a/ia, that the revised provisions as per these orders shall apply to Government servants who retire/die in harness on or after 1.1.1986. The said Office Memorandum will, therefore, be applicable to Government servants retiring on 1.1.1986. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the Office Memorandum dated April 14, 1987 will not apply to the petitioner. Be that as it may, we have already held that the petitioner had retired with effect from 1.1.1986 and he comes within the purview of paragraph 17.3 of the recommen­ dations of the Pay Commission. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respon­ dents are directed to calculate and pay to the petitioner within three D months from today his pension in accordance with the recommenda­ tion of the Pay Commission as contained in paragraph 17.3 extracted above. There will, howerve, be no order as to costs. P.S.S. Petition allowed. ..