B MAHAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought calculation of her retiral benefits for the purposes of gratuity and issuance of revised Pension Payment Order (for short 'P.P.O.').

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she served as Lieutenant Military Nursing Service (Local), in short M.N.S., under the Ministry of Defence as a Commissioned Officer in the Army. After rendering service for about 33 years, she retired on 30.9.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 24.12.2003, P.P.O. was issued by the respondents, as per which the net gratuity amount payable to her was Rs. 2,26,115/- and life pension of Rs. 4,474/- per month. Later on, revised P.P.O. dated 9.9.2004 was issued by the respondent, according to which, the net gratuity amount payable to her was Rs. 2,38,739/-. It was submitted that Army Instructions 3/58 had been superseded by Army Instructions 14/77 and as a result thereof, para 11(A) was inserted providing for the grant of pensionary benefits to the officers of M.N.S. on retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering temporary service of not less than 20 years to be the one as admissible to temporary civilian government servants. Therefore, she was entitled to the gratuity at the rate of one month's basic pay for each completed year of service. The respondents never offered any option for change of this to the petitioner and she herself did not opt for any change during her service period. Even otherwise, the respondents were not competent to change this condition of service of the petitioner under any circumstance, notwithstanding any other additional benefits by way of pension, etc. The petitioner had submitted the required forms for the grant of pension, terminal gratuity and computation of pension to the concerned authorities to which benefits she was entitled on her superannuation at the age of 55 years, as she had put in 32 years 11 months and 25 days of service and thus, entitled to be paid the terminal gratuity for the total 33 years of service. However, the respondents fixed her pension by taking into consideration Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules', which provided that the employee should have a qualifying service of 33 years and person, having put in less than 33 years of service, was to be paid pension proportionately without realising that the age of superannuation in the case of M.N.S. was 55 years and therefore pension was required to be fixed by taking qualifying service for pension as 30 years.

(3.) Reply was filed by the respondents, wherein it was stated that the maximum benefits have already been sanctioned to the petitioner. Her pension has not been reduced as she had been provided with maximum pension benefits for her service. As per C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, the maximum benefits could be given to those who had put in 33 years of qualifying service (ceiling limit). Therefore no such further benefit, as claimed by the petitioner, can be given to her.