MD.RAHIM FAROOQUI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union, of India.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Presiding Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) after his superannuation from service of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. Petitioner 'spension and other emoluments arising out of retirement had accrued to him before he came to be appointed on the present post. He was receiving pension is not in dispute. He is aggrieved by an order communicated to him by the Ministry of Finance dated 30.3.2006, contained in Annexure -5. By virtue of this communication certain objections has been raised on the salary bill payable to him by the concerned authority. This is the cause of action for filing of the present writ application. In the communication, the petitioner has been directed to correct the salary bill in question by deducting gross pension from the salary bill instead of net pension which has been done by the petitioner. The salary bill had been returned to him twice over directing him to make correction by deducting gross pension instead of net pension which would be in consonance with the Rule 3(1) of the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay and Allowances of Re -employed Pensioner) Orders 1986, but petitioner does not agree with the stand taken by the respondents.

(3.) A counter affidavit now has been filed on behalf of the respondents and they have taken a stand that the communication made to the petitioner contained in Annexure -5 is in consonance with the law as it exists today. They categorically state that in view of a notification dated 19th March, 1998 certain amendments have been brought about in the rules which are called Debt Recovery Tribunal (Salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of services of Presiding Officer) Amendment Rules, 1998. Rule 2(A) define salary, it states that the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal shall be paid salary in the scale of pay of 18,400 -500 -22,400/ - w.e.f. 1.1.1996, but there is a proviso to the said amended rule which states that in case of retired District Judges or such retired employees of the Central Government or State Government, a deduction of gross amount of pension or C.P.F. as the case may be, shall be made from the pay scale which is supposed to be salary of the Presiding Officer. If the rule is unambiguous on the issue then the communication contained in Annexure -5 seems to be in conformity with the rule and the law as is existing today.