N.D.P. NAMBOODRIPAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 349 · Decided: 16-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

N.D.P. NAMBOODRIPAD 
A 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
B 
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954-Schedule 1; Part 
lIJ-Paras 2 (a) and (b)-Kerala Service Rules-Part lJI; Rule 62--Calculation 
of pension on the basis of salary last drawn-Held, salary last drawn includes c 
dearness allowance and special allowances-Figures under paras 2 (a) and 
(b) should not be added for the purpose of calculation of pension. 
Appellant was a member of the State Higher Judicial Services who 
retired with a pensionable service of 23 years including 8 years as a High 
-
Court Judge. Under Part III of Schedule I to High Court Judges D 
~ 
(Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 as amended by the Amending Acts, 1986 
and 1988, the basic pension for the appellant was fixed at Rs.17,300 per 
annum. The Central Government, by an order issued in April 1987 
rationalised the pension structure of employees who retired before 
1.1.1986. It also issued a separate order in December 1987 revising the E 
ordinary pension admissible to High Court Judges under para 2 (a) of Part 
III of Schedule I to High Court/Supreme Court Judges (Condition of 
Service) Act, 1954/1958 with effect from 1.1.1986. 
The State Government issued an order in October 1989 extending 
the benefit of the Central Government order issued in April 1987 to retired F 
High Court Judges with effect from 1.1.1986. Accordingly, the appellant's 
pension was revised to Rs.32,720 per annum with effect from 1.1.1986. 
The appellant's pension was further revised to Rs.37,200 per annum with 
effect from 1.11.1986 after amendment to Para 2(b) of Part III to Schedule 
I of the Act in 1986. 
G 
The appellant filed an Original Petition before High Court 
challenging the calculation of pension without including the dearness 
allowance and special allowances in the last pay drawn. A learned Single 
~ 
Judge allowed the petitio'n of the appellant and directed the respondents 
to refix the appellant's pension at Rs. 35,000 per annum from l.l.1986 H 
349 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A and at Rs.47,900 per annum from 1.11.1986; and that the appellant would 
be entitled to all consequential benefits after re-fixation. The Central 
Government filed a Writ Appeal. The Division Bench allowed the writ 
appeal. The review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the 
High Court 
B 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that under Rule 62 
of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, the pay last drawn shoo.Id include 
dearness allowance and special allowances for calculation of pension; and 
that Rule 62 is an inclusive provision which includes dearness allowance 
and other allowances; that the High Court was not correct in not adding 
C the figures under para 2 (a) and (b) of the Act for fixation of pension. 
The Central Government contended that under Rule 62 of Part III 
of the Kerala Service Rules, only dearness pay is considered for fixation 
of pension and not dearness allowance and special allowance. 
D 
Partly allowing the appeals with directions, the Court 
HELD:l. The phrase "and includes" in Rule 62 o( Kerala Service 
Rules cannot be taken to mean "and only includes". The first part of the 
definition cannot be taken away by the inclusive definitions contained in 
clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 62. Therefore, the respondents are not justified 
E in not taking intO account the dearness allowance and special allowance 
drawn by the appellant for the calculation of the appellant's pension. For 
the purpose of calculations, the emoluments received as last payment 
including dearness allowances be considered and .not merely the last salary. 
F 
[353-H; 354-A-C] 
ML. Jain~ Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 355 distinguished. 
2. Under the notification/order dated 18.12.1987 issued by 
Government of India, what is revised is ordinary pension under para 2 
(a) and not the special additional pension under para 2(b) of Part III ·of 
G Schedule I to the High Court/Supreme Court Judges (Condition of Service) 
Act, 1954/1958. Each of them have different characteristics. Therefore, 
the view of the Division Bench that the figures under clauses (a) arid (b) 
of para 2 of Part III of the Schedule I to the Act cannot be added for the 
purposes of finding out the revised pension is correct. Paras 2 (a) and (b) 
of Part II of 1st Schedule of the Acts and Rules governing the service 
H condition of the High Court Ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.