DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS Vs. B RAVINDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The point which arises for consideration, in this batch of appeals, is whether an ex-serviceman, who after his retirement before attaining the ageof 55 is re-employed in civil service, while getting his pay fixed, is entitled to an advance increment only if his pay plus pension plus pension equivalent a of gratuity is less than the last pay drawn at the time of retirement.

(3.) This question arises in the context of the following facts and circumstances. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts of all these appeals and, therefore, we refer to the facts of Civil No. 4077 of 1992 only. Ravindran, applicant in OA No. 3 of 1989, out of which this appeal arises, after his retirement from Air Force, was re-employed as a Postal Assistant on 29/11/1983. He had served in the Air Force from 4/11/1965 to 30-11- 1980. His last pay in the Air Force was Rs. 400. 00 per month and his pension on the basis of the said service was fixed at Rs. 187. 00 per month. The pension equivalent of gratuity was Rs. 20. 17. On his re-employment as a Postal Assistant in the scale of Rs. 260-8-340-10-360-12-480 his pay was fixed at Rs. 260. 00 being the minimum of the pay scale. According to him while fixing his pay and determining hardship the whole of military pension which he was getting was required to be ignored and he ought to have been granted one advance increment for each completed year of military service in view of the government of India, Ministry of Finance OM dated 25/11/1958 read with government of India, Ministry of Defence OM dated 8/2/1983, as he was getting Rs. 140. 00 less than what he was getting at the time of retirement from military service. As he had put in 11 years' service in equivalent or higher grade in the Air Force his pay at the time of re-employment on 29-11 - 1983 should have been fixed at Rs. 350. 00 per month. He was denied this benefit and his initial pay was pegged down to the minimum of pay scale at Rs. 260. 00 on the ground that his case cannot be regarded as a case of hardship in view of the clarification made by the Department of Personnel and Training after consulting the Ministry of Finance and which is contained in the circular letter dated 30/12/1985 issued by the Director General, Pandt. The applicant, therefore, approached the central Administrative tribunal and challenged the said clarification and the letter dated 30/12/1985 as arbitrary and against the provisions of pay fixation of re-employed pensioners. The respondents in other appeals were also denied the benefit of advance increments for the same reason and, therefore, they had also challenged before the tribunal the said clarification and the letter dated 30/12/1985.