RAM KUMAR SHASTRI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for the retiral benefits to be properly computed and paid to him. The claim is in respect of four heads: (i) pension, (ii) gratuity, (iii) leave encashment, and (iv) the arrears to the pay actually drawn and the pay which he was entitled to if selection grade scales had been properly applied to him. The admitted case is that he was a Sanskrit teacher in the 4th respondentschool which was an aided institution and he was in a sanctioned post. He was a State Awardee for meritorious service and was allowed to an extended service till he completed the age of 62 years and retired on 31.12.1998. In the manner of computation of pension under the CPF Rules of 2001, the pension had been computed upto the year when he reached the age of 58 years and the pensionable service was calculated from 01.11.1967, the date when he made the contribution for the CPF. The pensionable service as per the 2001 Rules is 33 years and the petitioner has been granted, by the method of reckoning adopted, not the full pension but the pension attributable for the service from 01.11.1967 to 31.12.1994. The petitioner had claimed leave encashment which was also denied to him on the ground that the Rules did not provide for leave encashment in private schools and it was always left to the financial capacity of the Management to extend such a benefit. As regards the claim for arrears of the salary payable if selection grade were to be applied, the respondent has not specifically entered any contest since it is only in the relief column that the petitioner makes a reference for such arrears.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the provision for computing the number of years of service for the purpose of superannuation pension was to be considered as 58 years to services of National/State Awardees on aided schools only through a note which was introduced by the Education Department, (Higher Secondary) notification dated 15.12.2005 and this did not apply to a person such as the petitioner, who had retired in the year 1998 before the note was introduced. In my view, the argument is erroneous for the Rule was not amended for the first time as canvassed, but a note has been added in the manner of explanation to the Rules. A note explains the position of what rule already contains and ought not to be understood as an amendment to the years of 2001 Rules. The provision relating to superanuation pension contained in Rule 8(1) of the 2001 Rules reads thus, "8(1) Superannuation pension.-An employee other than Group 'D' employee under these rules, will be entitled to the superannuation pension from the date he attains the age of fifty eight years.

(3.) In this case, it is admitted that the petitioner had completed 58 years on 31.12.1994 and it was by virtue of meritorious service that entailed a consideration for extension in service till 1998. According to the learned counsel, the period of service from 1994 to 1998 ought not to be treated as re-employment but, on the other hand, a continuation in employment and, therefore, the Rule 8(1) could not be applied to him. I would reject this contention, for, a fiction brought for computation of the pension by treating the service as available till he attained the age of 58 years only and the fact that he continued beyond 58 years is not relevant only for the purpose of computation of his pensionable service as well as the computation of pension. Consequently, the period of service will have to be counted only upto the age when he attained the age of 58 years and not till he was actually superannuated on completion of 62 years in the year 1998.