V.S.MURTHY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 07-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
V.S.MURTHY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 7, 1992 
[A.M. AHMADI AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.) 
Indian Railway Establishment Code: 
Rules 2003 FR 9(8) and 2003 FR 9(9}-Railway employee on deputa-
tion with a Public Sector Undertaking-'Deputation '-Whether foreign ser-
vice-Whether pay received in the Public Sector Undertaking was from the 
general revenue of the State. 
Rules 2544-A (CSR 486-A), 2544-B (CSR 486-B) and 2544-C (CSR 
486-C)(-) Railway employee deputed to a Public Sector Undertaking-Per-
D manently absorbed subsequently-'Deputation (duty) allowance' drawn 
during deputation-Whether to be included in emoluments for purpose of 
calculation of pension on permanent absorption. 'Deputation 
al/owance'-When can be deemed to be special pay. 
E 
Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950: 
Paras 501 (4) and 506--Provisions meant for guidance of Railway 
staff- Cannot override statutory rules contained in Indian Railway Estab-
lishment Code. 
The appellant was initially appointed in the Railways. Subsequently, 
F 
he proceeded on deputation to a Public Sector Undertaking, and was 
permanentaly absorbed there. While on deputation, he was receiving his 
pay as admissible from time to time in the parent department, plus 
deputation (duty) allowance. On absorption, the appellant claimed his 
pensionary benefits from the Railways, and on his request, 100% commuta-
G tion of pension was allowed. However, the calclltation of pension was made 
without taking into accout the deputation (duty) allowance which he was 
drawing while on deputation. 
Having failed to persuade the authorities, through various repre-
sentations, to include the deputation (duty) allowance for the purpose of 
H calculation of his pension, the appellant approached the Central Ad-
92 
--~ 
i 
V.S. MURTHYv. U.0.1. 
93 
>--
ministrative Tribunal. The claim was contested by the respondents on the A _ 
ground that since the service rendered by him on deputation to the Public 
Sector Undertaking was 'foreign service' the deputation (duty) allowance 
received by him could not be included in the expression "emoluments" for 
the purpose of calculation of pension. 
The Tribunal held that deputation (duty) allowance, in case of B 
deputation to bodies owned wholly or substantially controlled by the 
Government, would reckon for pension in terms of the provisions made in 
Rules 2544-A and 2544-B (CSR 486-A and 486-B) of the Indian Railway 
Establishment Code, subject, however, to the fulfilment of the conditions 
laid down therein, notwithstanding the provisions of MRP Rules, but the C 
benefit of counting the deputation (duty) allowance received by the appel-
lant for calculation of bis pension was not available to him, since be did 
not fulfil the condition of length of service during which be should have 
drawn the special pay as envisaged by Rules 2544-A (CSR 486-A) and 
2544-B (CSR 486-B) of Indian Railway Establishment Code. 
In the appeal before this Court, the appellant contended that the 
deputation (duty) allowance was required to be included for calculation of 
pension since it was in the nature of "special pay", which under the Indian 
Railway Establishment Code read with F.R. had to be taken into account 
D 
for calculation of pension, and that he could not be treated to be on 'foreign E 
service' while serving with the Public Sector Undertaking, since the Under-
taking in question was a Government of India Undertaking and was under 
the control of the Central Government and, its revenues would be included 
in the general revenues of the State. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that though the order F 
of the Tribunal in rejecting the appellant's claim was correct and required 
no interference, the reasoning of the Tribunal which had failed to take note 
of Rules 2003 (FR.9) and 2544-C (CSR 486-C) was fallacious. 
Dismissing the appeal, by Special leave, this Court, 
G 
HELD : 1. The allowance received by the appellant as deputation 
~ 
. 
(duty) allowance from th~ Public Sector Undertaking was rightly excluded 
from being taken into account for reckoning as "emoluments" for the 
purpose of calculation of pension of the appellant by the railways. The 
order of the Tribunal does not require any interference though for reasons H 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
different than the one given by the Tribunal. [105 A] 
B 
c 
2.1 The provisions of Manual of Railway Pension Rules are meant 
for the guidance of the staff and by

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