K N RAJASEKHARAN NAIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners herein retired from service of the Hindustan News Print at a time when they were working as Senior Managers in the Civil and ENNT departments respectively. It was the Employees' Family Pension Scheme 1971 that was applicable to the petitioners until the new Pension Scheme of 1995 came into vogue with effect from 16/11/1995. The two petitioners had put in only less than 17 and 18 years service respectively at the time retirement in 1999 and 2002 respectively. They are aggrieved that their pensionable service was taken as only 4 years and 5 years respectively and that the pension sanctioned to them are too inadequate.

(2.) Mr. B.Gopakumar who appeared for the petitioners, submitted that the orders sanctioning pension served on the petitioners do not disclose the manner in which the pension amounts were arrived at and that there is obvious error committed by the authority in calculating the pension due to the petitioners. Reference was also made during arguments to the definitions given in the Pension Scheme with regard to 'Pensionalble service' and also to the manner in which pension should be calculated as envisaged in paras-11 and 12 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. The sum and substance of his arguments is that instead of para 12(5), Para 12(1) and 12(2) should be applied for fixing pension. Note XI, IXV and grounds F J, K etc of the O.P. refers to a third petitioner. The original petition actually is filed by only two petitioners and there is no plea in the Original Petition with regard to the exact amount of pension allowed to petitioners 1 and 2. As regards the 1st petitioner reliance is placed on Ext.P1. That is an incomplete document and it contains no mention of the pension allowed to that petitioner. Thus the pleadings and Exhibits available keeps the court in the dark as to the exact pension amount allowed to the first petitioner. As regards the 2nd petitioner also there is no plea regarding the pension allowed, but Ext.P2 shows that the monthly pension allowed is Rs. 1,698/- and the reduced monthly pension itself is Rs. 1,528/-. Thus the original petition does not contain in any plea with regard to the precise amount claimed as admissible to either of the petitioners. The available pleadings only show that the petitioners are dissatisfied with amounts arrived at based on para 12(5) and they want para 12(1) and 12(2) to be applied instead.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Mr.Gopakumaran Nair submitted that since the Scheme of 1995 substituted the earlier Scheme of 1971 separate provisions are available in the new Scheme with regard to the persons who have joined service after 16/11/1995 and with regard to the person who were already serving as on the said date. According to him para 12(5) alone applies to the petitioners herein and the pension allowed to them is based on correct calculation. What arises for consideration, in the circumstances, is whether the petitioners are entitled to have a reclaculation of pension applying paras 12(1) and 12(2).