UNION OF INDIA Vs. VISHVA DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner Union of India has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 16.10.2002 whereby the Original Application of the respondent Vishva Deo has been accepted a direction has been given to fix his pay in accordance with O.M. dated 25th November, 1958 as amended upto date and the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Order, 1986 by granting all 20 advance increments for having 20 years of service in the Army.

(2.) The respondent served Indian Army in the Army Medical Corps during the period 8th January, 1968 to 1st February, 1988 as Nursing Assistant. He retired from service after completing 20 years of active service. He was re- employed on the post of Nursing Orderly on 6th January, 1992 in the Post and Telegraph Department. The post of Nursing Orderly is in the Scale of Rs. 800-1150/-. The respondent has been fixed at Rs. 800/- i.e. the minimum of the Scale on the date of his re-employment. The respondent has claimed fixation of pay in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Order 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Pensioners Order). Thus, the controversy involved is with regard to the fixation of pay of the respondent on the re-employed post of Nursing Orderly on the date of his re-employment i.e. 6th January, 1992. The Tribunal has granted the relief to the respondent having found the controversy concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Mool Singh and Anr., 2002(4) SCT 661 (Raj.) : 2002(2) W.L.C 31. The decision of this Court is based on the decision of the Apex Court in Director General of Posts and Ors. v. B. Ravindran and Anr., 1997(2) SCT 153 (SC) : 1997(1) SCC 641. It is held therein that where a person who has retired before attaining the age of 55 years and is re- employed, in fixing his pay on re-employment his pension shall ignored only on the extent provided in para (d) of Clause 4 and his pay shall be fixed as per Clause b(ii). It was further observed that in such case Rule is not to fix the pay at the minimum of pay-scale applicable to the post, but to fix at the same stage at the last pay drawn before retirement.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Dilip Rajvi, learned counsel for the Union of India that the respondent has not exercised his option for inclusion of his Military Service in the Civil Service. As such he is not entitled to the benefit of the Memorandum dated 25.11.1958. He has referred to Annexure-R/2. We have read the Notification referred by the learned counsel. A bare reading of the document shows that it has nothing to do with the pay fixation. On the contrary the Memorandum dated 25.11.1958 has direct bearing on the controversy which reads :