A P BARTHWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner desig nated as General Manager in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways, later re- desig nated as the Regional Manager, was ap pointed on deputation to the Government of Sikkim, on the post of General Manager, Sikkim Nationalised Transport, with the Headquarter at Ganktok. He continued on the said deputation from 20-3-1976 till 31-3-1978 namely the date of the retirement from service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh while on deputation, as aforesaid. On ac count of such deputation the petitioner was paid composite compensatory allowance of Rs. 600 on the petitioner's basic pay of Rs. 1500. Out of the said composite compen satory allowance fifty per cent was treated as deputation specialpay as per terms and con ditions of Sikkim Government Notification dated 19th May, 1976. According to the petitioner the said special pay formed part of the petitioner's pay and, as such, the same was to be included while computing the petitioner's pension. Since he had retired while on deputation therefore, he is entitled to a higher pension, which was denied to him, namely when calculating the quantum of pension, the special pay was omitted. On 4th December, 1976, the petitioner made a representation, (Annexure-2 to the petition explaining the position in support of cal culation of pension. But the said repre sentation was not decided for a long time Ultimately by an order dated 20th April 1987 (Annexure-3 to the petition) the petitioner's representation was rejected. In the above background the petitioner claimed the following reliefs: " (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to include Rs. 300 towards pension together with basic salary which the petitioner was getting at the time of retirement. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of pension and gratuity on the basis of total salary of Rs. 1500+300=1800 together with arrears which was due since 1st April, 1978. (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. "

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit the respon dent No. 1, State of Uttar Pradesh con tended that after creation of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation ( here in after referred to as UPSRTC) the post of General Manager of the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways was re-designated as the Regional Manager. The petitioner, who was on deputation in Sikkim, had retired from service on 31-3- 1978. But he continued to serve the Sikkin Rashtriya Parivahan on a consolidated pay of Rs. 2000 per month till 31st March, 1980. The terms and conditions of the petitioner's deputa tion to Sikkim Parivahan were fixed by Government Order, dated 22nd June 1977, (Annexure-CAl ). IN terms there of the com pensatory allowance sanctioned by ths Sik kim Government could not be included for the purposes of computing pension payable by the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. The Sikkim Government had issued a Pay Certificate to the petitioner, wherein it was duly mentioned that the petitioner's pay was Rs. 1500 per month. The petitioner's pension was accordingly calculated and the special pay did not find mention in the last pay certifi cate of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner, therefore, was rejected by an order dated 28-4-1987 (Annexure-CA2)

(3.) THE petitioner, in the rejoinder-af fidavit had reiterated his case, as made out in the writ petition. It is contended by the petitioner that the officers from different States were obtained on deputation in Sik kim for managing its Rashtriya Parivahan. THErefore, for the purposes of uniformity of pay and terms and conditions of other States the Government of Sikkim has formulated and framed its own terms and conditions for the officers of other States. THE petitioner was deputed to Sikkim on the terms and condition that might be made available to the petitioner by the Government of Sik kim. THE petitioner had never made any request for including compensatory al lowance towards calculation of pension, he had only claimed inclusion of Special pay for the said purposes. THE petitioner ad mitted that he was a State Government employee and his services were given on loan to the Government of Sikkim since he had retired while on deputation, therefore, the Special pay is liable to be included for computing pension. THE petitioner ad mitted that in the Last Pay Certificate the Government of Sikkim had mentioned the amount of last pay drawn as Rs. 1500. It was not necessary to included the special pay in the said certificate. THE State Government rejected the petitioner's valid claim by order dated 20-4- 1987. THErefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay.