LexS. BANERJEE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F S. BANERJEE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. OCTOBER 24, 1989 [MURARI MOHON DUTI, S. RANGANATHAN AND S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Rule 5(2) and 48A-Supreme Court employee-Permitted voluntary retirement with effect from January 1, 1986-Whether entitled to claim benefit of para 17.J of Report of Fourth Central Pay Commission. Paragraph 17.3 of Chapter 17, Part II of the Report of the Fourth Central Pay Commission entitled Government employees retiring during the period January 1, 1986 to September 30, 1986 to considera- tion of the entire dearness allowance drawn by them upto December 31, 1985 as pay· for pensionary benefits. Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 permits the day on which a Government servant retires from service to be treated as his last working day. The proviso thereto, however, states that in the case of a Government servant who retires voluntarily under Rule 48-A the date of retirement shall be treated as a non-working day. The petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court under the provisions of Rule 48-A of the Rules with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986 by an order dated December 6, 1985. His claim to the benefit of paragraph 17 .3 was not acceded to. In the writ petition it was contended for the respondents that as in view of the proviso to rule 5(2) of the Rules the petitioner was not entitled to the salary for the day of his retirement, he -was not entitled to the benefit of paragraph 17.3. G Allowing the writ petition, HELD: U oder paragraph 17 .3 of Chapter 17, Part U of the Report of the Fourth Central Pay Commission the benefits recom- mended will be available to employees retiring during the period, January 1, 1986 to September 30, 1986. In the instant case, the H petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the 562 - S. BANERJEE v. U.0.1. IDUIT, J.] 563 Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986. The fact that under the proviso to rule 5(2) of the Rules, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the day on which he actually retired has no bearing on the question as to the date of retire- ment. The petitioner could not be said to have retired on December 31, 1985. It has tben to be said that he had retired with effect from January 1, 1986 and that is also the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985. He, therefore, comes within the purview of paragraph 17 .3 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission. [565A~E] The respondents to calculate and pay to the petitioner within three months bis pension in accordance with the recommendation of the Pay Commission as contained in paragraph 17.3. [566D] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1155 of 1987. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). S.P. Malik and Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik for the Petitioner. Anil Dev Singh, R. Venkataramani, R.B. Mishra and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A B c D E DUTT, J. The petitioner was the Additional Registrar of this Court. His normal date of retirement was March 31, 1987. He, however, sought for voluntary retirement from the service of this Court and on his application in that regard, the following order dated December 6, 1985 was communicated to him by the Registrar of this F Court: "OFFICE ORDER The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India has accepted the notice of Shri S. Banerjee, Offg. Additional Registrar G (Permanent Deputy Registrar), seeking voluntary retire- ment from service under the provisions of Rule 48A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and has permitted Illm to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court of India with effect from the forenoon of January l, 1986." H A B c D 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. It is clear from the order extracted above that the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986. After the retirement of the petitioner, the Fourth Central Pay Commission (for short 'Pay Commission') gave its report recommend- ing the revision of salaries and pension of the Government employees. It is not disputed that the above recommendations of the Pay Commis- sion h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.