LexDIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS versus B. RAVINDRAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS v. B. RA VINDRAN AND ANR. NOVEMBER 8, 1996 [S.C. AGRA WAL AND G.T. NANA VA Tl, JJ.] Service Law : Civil Services Regulations : Articles 521 and 526. Ex-serviceman-Pay-Fixation of- Ex-serviceman retired before attaining age of 55 years and re-employed in civil service on or after 8-2- 1983-Advance increments-Entitlement of-To alleviate hardship-Tests to determine-Held: Ignorable part of pension to be ignored while totalling up pay plus pension-In order to determine whether pay fixed at minimum D of pay scale of post concerned would cause undue hardship-Po/icy decision a/Central Government dated 25-11-1958 stood altered or modified to that extent by OMs of 1963, 1964, 1978 and 1983--0Ms of 1978 and 1983 did have a bindingforce-Contrary clarification dated 30-12-1985 rightly held by Central Administrative Tribunal to be illegal-Government of India OM dated 25-11-1958, OMs of 1963, 1964, 1978 and 1983 and DG P&T E Circular dated 30-12-1985--Government of India Act 1919, S.96-B(4)- Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 313. F Civil Services Regulations-Nature of-Held: Statutory. Administrative Law : Subordinate legis/ation-Clarificatory instructions-Held: can neither supersede nor take away right itself under Regulations. The respondent who was an ex-serviceman retired before G attaining the age of 55 years and was re-employed in civil service after 8-2-1983. On his re-employment respondent's pay was fixed at the minimum of the pay scale. The respondent was entitled to one advance increment for each completed year of service in the military in view of Government of India, Office Memorandum (O.M. dated 25-11-1958 read with O.M. dated 8-2-1983). The respondent was H denied this benefit on the ground that the respondent's case could 638 • - DIRECTOR GEN. OF POSTS v. B. RAVINDRAN 639 not be regarded as a case of hardship in view of the circular dated 30- A 12-1985 issued by Director General, Posts and Telegraphs. The respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the aforesaid clarification dated 30-12-1985. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the appellants to ignore the ignorable part of the respondent's pension while deciding whether any undue hardship was caused to the respondent. Being aggrieved B the appellants preferred the present appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the concept of hardship was introduced by the Government in O.M. dated 25-11- 1958 to ensure that there was no drop in the total package of pay and pension on re-employment; that it was never the intention of the C Government to allow advance increments; that the circular dated 30-12-1985 was clarificatory in nature as it made explicit what was implicit in O.M. dated 25-11-1958 and was not inconsistent with the statutory provision contained in the Civil Service Regulations, Articles 521 and 526; and that the orders issued in 1963, 1964, 1978 and !983 did not deal with the aspect of hardship and were not intended to D change the basic policy contained in the 1958 instructions. Dismissing the appeal, this· Court HELD: I.I. The original order for fixation of pay ofre-employed E pensioners was contained in Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 25-11- 1958. Under that O.M. the initial pay of ex-serviceman pensioners was to be fixed at the minimum stage of the post concerned. If his pay thus fixed plus pension (including other benefits) exceeded his pre-retirement pay, necessary adjustment was to be made in the pay by reducing it below the minimum stage so as to ensure that the total pay including F pension was within the prescribed limits. If the initial pay plus the pension was found to be less, then it was to be regarded as a case of undue hardship and his pay was required to be fixed at higher stage by allowing one increment for each year of service which he had rendered before retirement in a post not lower than in which he was re-employed. G However, when it was noticed that this formula was not fair and just in cases of pensioners who retired at an early age that is before 55 years, the Government in relaxation of the policy contained in the 1958 order decided to grant some benefits to such re-employed pensioners and issued an order directing that civil pension up to Rs. 10/- per month and military pension up to Rs.15/- per month should be ignored in H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.