Service Matter - Pension - 10 months would not mean the past 10 months and if the employee had remained on leave without allowances, even their calculation as per the last pay drawn had rightly been made by the office of Accountant General as referred by learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in the orders impugned .

  Service Matter - Pension - 10 months would not mean the past 10 months and if   the employee had   remained on leave without allowances, even their calculation as per the last pay drawn had rightly  been   made   by   the   office   of   Accountant   General   as referred by learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in the orders impugned . the  last  pay  drawn  by  the   appellant   was Rs. 46,400/­ and according to the same, his pension in the revised scale has rightly been fixed at Rs. 19,333/­ on account of completing the qualifying service by her. = for computing 10 months emoluments for the purpose of average emoluments in respect of an employee, who retired from service on or after 1.1.2006 and who during part 10 months draws pay in the prerevised   scale,   their   pay     in   the   pre­revised   scale   may   be enhanced notionally to the initial pay drawn in the revised scale, which came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 

 Average emolument, as specified in the Rules,  is required to be calculated as per Note 1 Clause 63 of Annexure P­18, from which it is clear that if during this period, an employee had been absent from duty, on leave with   or   without   allowances,   which   qualified   for   pension   or having   been   suspended,   but   re­instated   in   service,   without forfeiture   of     service,   his   emoluments   for   the   purpose   of ascertaining the average   would be taken, at what they would have been, had he not been absent from duty or suspended provided that the benefit of pay in any officiating post would be admissible only if it is certified that he would have continued to hold that officiating post but for leave or suspension.  

Therefore, it is clear  that part of 10 months would not mean the past 10 months and if   the employee had   remained on leave without allowances, even their calculation as per the last pay drawn had rightly   been   made   by   the   office   of   Accountant   General   as referred by learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in the orders impugned 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.  835   OF 2022

(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 29384 OF 2018)

STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER        ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ANIE LUKOSE .  …. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G E M E N T

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30.7.2018

passed   in   Writ   Appeal   No.   1513   of   2018     confirming   the

judgment dated 19.2.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge

allowing the Writ Petition (C) No. 2573 of 2016.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the

respondent had retired as selection grade Lecturer  on availing

voluntary  retirement  w.e.f. 31.7.2006.  His basic pension was

fixed in the pre­revised scale  at Rs. 8907/­ p.m..  Inadvertently,

1

in the verification report,  the  basic pension was  erroneously

shown as Rs. 7138/­ p.m. (pre­revised).  Thereafter, on revision

in the scale of pay, it was enhanced to  Rs. 11,127/­ and made

effective from 1.1.2006.  The fixation of the said basic pension

was challenged in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. (C) No.

30847 of 2012.  The High Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2013

held that the fixation of  pension at Rs. 7138/­ was erroneous

and his pension of Rs. 8907/­ (pre­revised) ought to have been

taken   into   account     at   the   time   of   revision   of   the   pay   and

pension   w.e.f.   1.1.2006.     The   said   judgment   has   not   been

challenged and therefore became final.  In view of the said fact,

prayer was made in WP(C) No. 2573 of 2016 to fix the pension @

Rs. 8907/­ in pre­revised and Rs. 19333/­ as   per revision of

pay  and pension  of the appellant.

4. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has taken note of

the  fact  that  the  last  pay  drawn  by  the   appellant   was

Rs. 46,400/­ and according to the same, his pension in the

revised scale has rightly been fixed at Rs. 19,333/­ on account

of completing the qualifying service by her.   In the previous

round of litigation, the  fixation  made  @   Rs. 7138/­   in   prerevised   scale   and   Rs.   11,127/­   in   revised   scale     was   found

erroneous by the High Court.   However, as per the direction

2

made by the High Court,  fixation had rightly been proposed by

the   office   of   the     Accountant   General   on   completion   of   the

qualifying service by her.   The appellants filed a Writ Appeal

and by the order impugned, the Division Bench of the High

Court held that the Accountant General had correctly prepared

the pension paper, fixing the pension at Rs. 19,334/­ in the

revised scale.  The Division Bench declined to interfere with  the

order of the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend  that as

per   the   Circular   being   G.O.(P)   No.   230/2012/Fin.   dated

19.04.2012, it is clarified that for computing the 10 months’

emoluments for the purpose of average emoluments in respect of

employees who retired from service on or after 1.1.2006, the

average emoluments are required to be counted.   The average

emoluments have been clarified in  Clause 63 of Annexure P­18

regarding   Kerala   Service   Rules.     It   is   contended   that   the

respondent had  retired after one month of re­joining from the

leave   for   about   two   years   without   allowances,   therefore,   the

order   impugned,   confirming   the   order   of   the   learned   Single

Judge, is wholly unjustified.

6. On the other hand,   learned counsel for the respondent

has argued with vehemence and contended that the Accountant

3

General has rightly made the fixation of the pension in the prerevised and revised scales of pay, relying upon the circulars and

the order of the High Court passed earlier.  Therefore, the order

impugned has rightly been passed by the High Court, which

does not warrant interference. 

7. After having heard    learned  counsel for  the  parties at

length and on perusal of the fixation made by the office of the

Accountant General, sent to the Principal Secretary (Finance),

Finance (Pension B)   Department, Thiruvananthapuram, it is

clear that the pension of the respondent was fixed at @ Rs.

19334/­   w.e.f.   1.3.2010.     The   said   fact   has   not   been

controverted in the counter­affidavit, as apparent from the order

of the learned Single Judge.  For  reverting  the arguments of the

appellants   with   reference   to   the   revised   Circular     dated

19.4.2012, it is necessary to refer to the original Circular G.O.

(P)   No.   211/2011/Fin   dated   7.5.2011,   specially   Clause   2(2)

relevant to the facts of the present case, which is reproduced as

thus:

“For computing 10 months’ emolument for the

purpose   of   average   emoluments,   in   respect   of

employees who retired from service on or after

1.1.2006 and who , during part of the said period

of 10 months, drawn pay in the pre­revised scale,

their   pay   in   the   pre­revised   scale   may   be

enhanced notionally by adding  DA at 74%”.

4

8. The said clause has been modified vide Circular G.O.(P)

No. 230/2012/Fin   dated 19.4.2012 , which is reproduced as

thus:

“For computing 10 months’   emoluments for the

purpose   of   average   emoluments   in   respect   of

employees   who   retired   from   service   on   or   after

1.1.2006 and who, during the part of 10 months,

drew pay in the pre­revised scale, their pay in the

pre­revised scale may be enhanced notionally to

the initial pay drawn in the revised scale which

came into force with effect from 1.2.2006.   Para

2.2 of GO read above and modified to this extent.

Para   2.1   of   the   GO   read   above   shall   not   be

applicable to the above category.”

9. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that for computing

10 months emoluments for the purpose of average emoluments

in respect of an employee, who retired from service on or after

1.1.2006 and who during part 10 months draws pay in the prerevised   scale,   their   pay     in   the   pre­revised   scale   may   be

enhanced notionally to the initial pay drawn in the revised scale,

which came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2006.  Average emolument, as

specified in the Rules,  is required to be calculated as per Note 1

Clause 63 of Annexure P­18, from which it is clear that if during

this period, an employee had been absent from duty, on leave

5

with   or   without   allowances,   which   qualified   for   pension   or

having   been   suspended,   but   re­instated   in   service,   without

forfeiture   of     service,   his   emoluments   for   the   purpose   of

ascertaining the average   would be taken, at what they would

have been, had he not been absent from duty or suspended

provided that the benefit of pay in any officiating post would be

admissible only if it is certified that he would have continued to

hold that officiating post but for leave or suspension.  Therefore,

it is clear  that part of 10 months would not mean the past 10

months and if   the employee had   remained on leave without

allowances, even their calculation as per the last pay drawn had

rightly   been   made   by   the   office   of   Accountant   General   as

referred by learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in

the orders impugned.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion,   we do not find any

error in  the  order  impugned,   warranting interference  in  this

appeal.   Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

………………………….J.

[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]

6

……………………………J.

[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 1, 2022.

7