UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DR. VIJAYAPURAPU SUBBAYAMMA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 22-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
DR. VIJA Y APURAPU SUBBA Y AMMA 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2000 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Central Civil Services (Temporary) Services Rules, 1965: 
c 
Pension-Pro rata pension-Entitlement to-Qualifying service-
Government employee superannuated after putting in only 12 years of service 
instead of 20 years of qualifying service-But Fourth Pay Commission reduced 
the qualifying service from 20 years to 10 years without retrospective effect-
Held, The recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission not being with 
D retrospective effect the employee is not entitled to receive liberalised pension. 
The respondent retired from service on 13.11.1980 on attaining the 
age of superannuation after putting in only 12 years, instead of 20 years, 
of qualifying service. Therefore, the respondent w,as not granted pensionary 
E benefits under the Central Civil Services (Temporary) Services Rules, 1965. 
Subsequently, the Fourth Pay Commission made a recommendation that 
for entitlement of pro rata pension, the length of service be reduced from 
twenty years to ten years. The said recommendation was accepted and came 
into force w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The respondent made a representation to the appellant 
F that she was entitled to pro rata pension,\which was rejected. However, the 
Centi al Administrative Tribunal directed the appellant to grant pro rata 
pension to the respondent in view of the said Pay Commission 
Recommendations w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The respondent retired on 13.11.1980 and under the then 
relevant Rules, an employee who has put in less than twenty years of qualifying 
service was not eligible to earn pension. At that point of time the respondent 
had put in only twelve years of qualifying service and, therefore, was not 
entitled to earn the pension on her retirement. The recommendations of the 
II 
372 
U.0.I. v. DR. VIJAYAPURAPU SUBBA YAMMA [V.N. KHARE, J.] 
373 
Fourth Pay Commission were accepted and enforced with effect from ~.1.1986 A 
whereby the requirement of qualifying service to earn pension was reduced 
to ten years from twenty years. By the said recommendations a new class 
of pensioners was created. But the said recommendations of the Pay 
Commission were not enforced with effect from 13.11.1980 - the date on 
which the respondent retired but with effect from 1.1.1986. Thus, the 
recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission not being with retrospective B 
effect, the respondent was not entitled to receive liberalised pension under 
the said recommendations which came into effect from 1.1.1986. 
[376-H; 371-A-B] 
V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay, (1998) 
8 SCC 30; Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta v. Capt. Biplabendra Chanda, C 
(1997) 1 SCC 208; Union of India v. Lieut. (Mrs.) E. Iacats, [1997) 7 SCC 
334 and T.N. Electricity Boardv. R. Veeraswamy, [1999) 3 SCC 414, relied on. 
M.C. Dhingra v. Union of India, [1996) 7 SCC 564 and T.S. 
Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to Government of India, [1993) 2 SCC 174, held D 
inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5346 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.96 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 532 of 1996. 
E 
T.L.V. Iyer, Y.P. Mahajan, S.K. Dwivedi and Anil Katiyar for the 
Appellants. 
D.V. Padma Priya for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
KHARE, J. The respondent herein, was appointed as a Lady Medical 
Officer in the Family Welfare Centre, Vishakhapatnam under the control of 
Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Vishakhapatnam on 22.9.1968. 
Subsequently, she was made quasi-permanent with effect from 31.3.1972 by G 
an order dated 15.10.1974. On 13.11.1980, the respondent retired from service 
on attaining the age of superannuation. On retirement, the respondent was 
given the terminal and other benefits under Central Civil Services {Temporary) 
Services Rules, 1965. The respondent was also given insurance money along 
with other benefits, as admissible to her. At the time when the respondent 
retired she had not completed the requisite qualified service of twenty years H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A for entitlement of pension. She was informed that as she had not put in 
required number of length of service, she is not entitled to any pension. 
Subsequently, the Fourth Pay Commission made recommendation that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.