ACCOUNTANT GENERAL Vs. C.S. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order of the CAT in O.A.No.398/99 dt. 24/11/1999, Bangalore Bench. The respondent herein made final retirement w.e.f. 14/4/1982 after serving 26 years 9 months 13 days. As per Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) 1972, which was in force then, he was entitled to addition of 5 years for qualifying service subject to the maximum limit of 30 years. Accordingly, addition of 3 years 2 months 17 days was given and the respondent was given maximum pension of 50%. Subsequently, on 10/9/1983, there was an amendment to 1972 Rules and Sec. 48B was introduced and the maximum qualifying service was raised from 30 years to 33 years. The Government, accepting the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission, issued O.M. dtd. 10/2/1998 laying down procedure for refixation of pension of pre-1986 pensioners and based on that, the pension of the respondent was fixed. While fixing the said pension after fixing the notional pay as per the Rules, the respondent was given weightage as per 1982 Rules. That was challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) The contention of the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that as per the O.M. dtd. 10/2/1998 issued for refixation of pension, he was entitled to weightage of 5 years taking the maximum qualifying service as 33 years which was available to the pensioners who retired on or after 1/1/1986, and that therefore, fixation of pension by taking only 30 years as maximum qualifying service was opposed to the principles of law.

(3.) The Central Administrative Tribunal taking into consideration the Rule i.e., old Rule 48 of 1972 Rules and O.M. dtd. 10/2/1998 came to the conclusion that the words "then prescribed" for the purpose of pension formula refer to the date 1/1/1986 which precedes those words and that therefore, the interpretation sought to be put forth by the present writ petitioners was misconceived. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent's pension should be refixed as on 1/1/1986 after first fixing his pay notionally as on 1/1/1986 and thereafter, applying Rule 48B and giving weightage of 5 years, his pension should be fixed proportionately. Consequently, the application was allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to refix the pension as on 1/1/1986 and 1/1/1996 in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. It is that order which has now been challenged in the writ petition.