ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus R. RAMAMURTHY AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 776 · Decided: 29-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ACCOUNT ANT GENERAL OF ORI SSA AND ANR 
R. RAMAMURTHY AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2006 
[ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: 
rr. 37 and 37-A-Pension on absorption in· or under a Corporation 
etc.-Restoration of commuted pension-Held, where an employee had 
commuted I/3rd permissible pension, pro-rata commuted pension has to be 
deducted ji·om the basic pension to arrive at restorable pension, but he will 
D get dearness relief interim relief etc. on full basic pension. 
E 
Appellants filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of the High 
Court in a writ petition involving the question, "what is the mode of calculating 
of restoration of pension in respect of employees covered by Rule 37 A of the 
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972"? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court was right in holding that in a case where an 
employee had commuted permissible pension, i.e. 113 and even where lesser 
portion is commuted, the pro-rata commuted portion has to be deducted from 
F the basic pension to arrive at restorable pension, but however, he will get 
dearness relief, interim relief etc. on full basic pension. In view of the decision 
in P. V. Sundara Rajan 's case*, there is no substance in the appeal. 
(777-D, E; 780-F] 
* P. V. Sundara Rajan v. Union of India (2000)4 SCC 469, relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5269 of2006. 
H 
From the Judgments and Orders dated 24.12.2003 and 12.4.2005 of the 
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. (Civil) No. 
8532/2003 and Review WPMP SR No. 78433/2004 in W.P. (Civil) No. 8532/2003 
respectively. 
776 
) 
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OFORISSA v. R. RAMAMURTHY [PASAYA T, J.] 
777 
A. Sharan, A.S.G., Dr. Shyamlha Pappu, J.V. Suryanaryana, Asheesh A 
Jain, Ms. Rekha Pandey and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, P. V. Sundarajan, Ms. Shipra 
Ghose, Ms. Arundhati Mukherjee, R. Krishnaa Morthi, Goodwill Indeevar, S. 
Udaya Kumar Sagar and Ms. Bina Madhavan (for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.) 
for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in these appeals is to a judgment rendered by a Division 
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.8532 of 2003. 
The said writ petition had been filed by the appellants questioning correctness C 
of the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad 
Bench (in short the 'CAT') in 0.A.No. 1345 of 200 l. The basic issue which 
arose for consideration in the writ petition was "what is the mode of calculating 
of restoration of pension in respect of employees covered by Rule 37A of 
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short the 'Rules'). According to the appellants, D 
a conjoint reading of Rules 37 and 37 A as operated upto 31.3.1995 has not 
been kept in view. The High Court modified the order of the CAT and held 
that in a case where an employee had commuted minimum permissible pension 
i.e. 1/3 and even where lesser portion is commuted, the pro rata commuted 
portion has to be deducted from the basic pension to arrive at restorable 
pension, but however, he will get dearness relief, interim relief etc. on full E 
basic pension. 
The High Court arrived at the aforesaid conclusion after considering 
Rules 37 and 37A. 
Challenge in these appeals is on the ground that the High Court was F 
not correct in calculating the commuted amount of pension to be restorable 
pension without taking into consideration the relevant pension rules and the 
Office Memorandum No.4/59/97-P&PW(D) dated 14.7.1998, Office Memorandum 
No.2/1187-PIC-1 dated 16.4.1987 and Office Memorandum No.45/86/97-
P&PW(A) Part II dated 27.10.1997. 
According to the appellants, these Memoranda's laid down the tables 
according to which the computation has to be arrived at as issued by the 
Department of Pension. 
G 
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the H 
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A judgment in question. 
B 
Rules 37 and 37A read as follows: 
"Rule 37: Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company 
or body:-
(1) A Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in 
a service or post in or under a Corporation or Company wholly or 
substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or a 
State Government or in or und.er a Body controlled or financed by the 
Central Government or a State Gover
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.