\
t
•
;.
" •
SH. S.V. BHIMA BHATIA AND ANR. ETC.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
JANUARY 18, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j
Service Law :
Pensio11-Fluctuation in the age of superammativ11-Se1vice beyond the
nom1al period of superannuation--Entitleme11t to pensio1t-Taki1•g into ac-
count the residue period-QuestiOll left Opell as no notice was issued 011 the
mattei-State not entitled to recorer pension already paid calculated on the
basis of the actual date of superannuation thereby including the residite
period-State free to ftx the pension according to nt/eo.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2836-37
of 1996 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.93 of the Karnataka Ad-
ministrative Tribunal in Bangalore in A. No. 1412 of 1991.
S.R. Bhat for the Appellants.
K.R. Nagraja for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
SLP (C) No. 20571/93 taken on Board.
We have· heard the learned counsel on both sides.
Leave granted.
Shri S.R. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that
during the period of fluctuation of superannuation of the Gov~rnmeni
servants betwee.t 55 and 58 years and continuation upto 60 years, the
Government ultimately had enhanced superannuation to 58 years with
liberty in public interest to appoint for further period upto 60 years the
persons who continued in service beyond the normal period of superan-
nuation are also entitled to the pension on the basis of scale of ::iay drawn
771
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A
by them on the date of their superannuation, i.e., 60 years and the pension
should be computed accordingly including the period of 3 years during
which they had continued in service. On the other hand, Shri Nagaraja,
learned counsel for the State, contended that the right of the Government
to superannuate the employee in exercise of the statutory power was
B upheld by this Court. The payment of pension requires to be decided on
the date on which the employee is required to retire and the residue period
would be treated as fortuitous. We need not decide this question in view
of the fact that this Court, while issuing notice, has expressly limited to the
question as to right of the State to recover the pension already paid to
them. Shri Nagaraja has fairly stated that the State has no objection and
C the State would not recover the pension already paid to them; the notice
is limited only to that extent. We hold that the State is not entitled to
recover the pension already paid to them computing the pension as if the
respondents retired at the age of 60 years. The larger question is left open
since that is not the matter on which the notice was issued. Consequently,
D the State is free to fix the pension according to rules.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
G.N.
Appeals disposed of.
(
•
•· .
Lex