Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
R. Rama Murthy vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2004(2)SLJ35(CAT)
JUDGMENT
K.R. Prasada Rao, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. This application is filed by the applicant, who is a retired pensioner, for a declaration that the impugned letter dated 9.5.01 issued by the Accountant General (A&E), Orissa vide Annexure-I as void and illegal being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in various judgments and for a direction to the respondents to pay him the amounts as mentioned in Annexure-V by way of pension and arrears due to him and also to pay the amounts which are fallen short from the said amount claimed by him during the period in question from 28.6.95 to 31.12.95 in terms of the recommendations made by the 4th Central Pay Commission and from 1.1.1996 in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission and thereafter in accordance with any such revised fixation of pension the 1st respondent may make from time to time. The applicant also sought for a declaration that the various paragraphs mentioned in the Office Memoranda in Annexure-VI of the present application as being invalid and calculate the pension payable to the applicant by deducting only the surrendered portion of the original pension, amounting to Rs. 403/- from the revised pension, as is done in the case of other pensioners and not 2/3rd of the revised pension. The applicant also sought for a declaration that he is entitled to receive pension as calculated in the case of other pensioners who retired on superannuation and commuted only 1/3rd of their pension (during the period of 15 years, pending restoration of such commuted portion and not in terms of the paragraphs mentioned in Annexure-VI.
2. The case of the applicant is briefly as follows:
The applicant was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Accountant General, Orissa at its branch in Puri by direct recruitment and was subsequently promoted as Account Officer on 7.4.1964 as in the meanwhile he has taken S.A.S. Examination and also worked as Superintendent from 1.8.55 which post was later designated as Section Officer. From 7.4.1964 he was working as Accounts Officer. Subsequently the applicant was sent on deputation to Computer Maintenance Corporation Limited (CMC) after his name was selected by the Comptroller arid Auditor General of India. The applicant was sent to Hyderabad on such deputation to appoint him at CMC as Accounts Manager. Thereafter all those deputationists were permitted to retire voluntarily from the Government of India and to be absorbed permanently in the respective Public Sector Undertakings to which they were deputed, if they so desired, and the applicant was also similarly permitted. The applicant was thereafter permanently absorbed in CMC from 1.6.79. Till then he was on deputation. Thus he served under the 1st respondent for 28.5 years from 27.11.1950 to 31.5.1979 in the office of the 2nd respondent and his pension and voluntary retirement was fixed at Rs. 604/- per month and the said amount was paid upto 27.6.1980. A little before 27.6.80, according to Rule 37-A of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, read with Rule 5(1) of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, the applicant commuted a sum of Rs. 201/- very nearly 1/3rd of the pension drawn by him then under Sub-rule 1-A of the said rules. Further, he also received the terminal benefits equal to the commuted value of the balance of the amount of pension i.e. Rs. 403/- left after commuting the amount of Rs. 201/- as worked out with reference to the commutation tables obtaining on the same date i.e., 28.6.80 from which date the commuted value became payable. The receipt of terminal benefits was subject to the condition mentioned in Rule 37-A(1)(b) that the applicant surrenders his right to draw 2/3rd of his pension. Therefore, under the provision of Rule 37-A, there is a commutation of the amount of Rs. 201/- under Rule 37-A(1)(a) by the applicant and receipt of terminal benefits equal to the commutation value of the amount representing the balance of the pension then being received by him which amounted to Rs. 403/-. Though the amount commuted by him was Rs. 201/-, it was referred to as 1/3rd of the pension in terms of Rule 37-A but in fact and in law, it was not 1/3rd of the pension, but Rs. 201/- only. The applicant received the amount calculated on the commutation of Rs. 201/- and the terminal benefits on Rs. 403/- on 28.6.80 as per Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules. According to the then existing rules, the applicant is not entitled to receive any further amount by way of pension after he receive the terminal benefits relatable to the balance of the pension under Rule 37-A(1)(b). Subsequently as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in 1987(1) SCC 142 the pensioners became entitled for restoration of the commuted portion of the pension after the expiry of the 15 years from the date of such commutation. In a later judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 (2) SCC 187, it was held that, "All those employees of the Union who had voluntarily retired and were permanently absorbed by the Public Sector Undertakings were also entitled to the same benefits so far as that portion of the pension which was commuted in terms of Rule 37-A(1)(a) was concerned and that portion had to be restored to them together with all attendant benefits as such employees should also be treated on par with the other employees of the Union of India."
3. In terms of the judgment, the applicant became entitled to be treated as on par with other pensioners of Union of India so far as Rs. 201/- which he commuted under Rule 37-A(1)(a) and he was not entitled to the restoration of Rs. 403/- because it was surrendered with an undertaking that he would not claim the same. In view of the said ruling of the Supreme Court, the applicant became entitled to restoration of his pension as it was enhanced from time to time as a result of the recommendations made by various pay commissions appointed by Union of India from time to time less amount of Rs. 403/- in respect of which he received terminal benefits calculated on the basis of commutation tables in force at the relevant time together with all the benefits of interim relief, enhancement of pension and enhanced Dearness Relief as adopted from time to time by the Union of India in respect of retired employees. Though the 1st respondent restored the pension in the case of all other pensioners by its decision No. 2 under Rule 10 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, it was not extended to the applicant or those who were similarly placed. As far as those employees of the 1st respondent who retired on attaining the age of superannuation or those persons who took voluntary retirement or those employees who chose to go on deputation to public sector undertakings but did not receive the terminal benefits by adopting the procedure mentioned in Rule 37-A(1)(b), the procedure adopted by the Department of Pension for fixing the pension is to deduct (during the period of 15 years) only the exact amount commuted by the employee from out of the pension payable to him as increased from time to time, and pay the balance after such deduction together with full benefits relating to dearness relief on the entire pension. But in the case of the applicant and similarly situated employees, the 1st respondent denied such benefits holding that they were not pensioners. In the case of the applicant and those similarly situated, the 1st respondent deducted 2/3rd of revised pension instead of exact sum of Rs. 403/- in respect of which he surrendered his right of drawing which is contrary to the rules and which also resulted in hostile discrimination against them. It is the further the contention of the applicant that in fact taking note of this hostile discrimination, the Supreme Court has struck down Paragraph 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 5.3.1987 which reads as follows:
"Central Government employees who got themselves absorbed under Central Public Sector Undertakings/autonomous bodies and have received or opted to receive commuted value for 1/3rd of pension as well as terminal benefits equal to the commuted value of the balance amount of pension left after commuting 1/3rd of the pension are not entitled to any benefit under these orders as they have ceased to be Central Government pensioners."
4. After the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the applicant moved the Supreme Court by way of W.P. (C) No. 67 of 2000 praying that the paragraphs phrased in a manner analogous to the above paragraph occurring in other Office Memoranda issued by the 1st respondent and having the same effect of excluding the applicant and similarly situated, should be struck down. Those paragraphs are 10(a) of O.M. dated 16.4.1987 and Paragraphs 7(a) and 19(a) of O.Ms. dated 27.10.1997 and 10.2.1998 respectively which are mentioned in Annexure-VI. The applicant was however permitted to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to pursue other remedies, by an order dated 31.7.2000. The applicant therefore approached this Tribunal by filing the present application seeking for declaration that those paragraphs occurring in the above referred Office Memoranda are no longer valid in law being opposed to the law declared by the Supreme Court. The applicant contended that he is entitled to restoration of the entire pension except Rs. 403/- which he had surrendered under Rule 37-A(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules on 28.6.1995, together with all attendant benefits. Though in the beginning the 1st respondent refused to pay Dearness Relief on full pension, on a direction issued by the Supreme Court in an order dated 31.7.2000, such dearness relief on full pension was paid to him but the 1st respondent reduced the amount by 2/3rd of the pension thus arrived at as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission. After 31.5.1979, on which date the applicant retired, the 1st respondent appointed 4th and 5th pay commissions, which submitted their reports and they were accepted by the 1st respondent with few modifications. In both the reports, an enhancement of the pension payable was recommended and that recommendation was accepted by the 1st respondent. So far as the 4th pay commission report is concerned, it is applicable to the applicant only from 28.6.1995 to 31.12.1995 as from the next date, the 5th pay commission came into force. Therefore, from 28.6.1995 to 31.12.1995, the applicant is entitled to be paid his full pension together with full dearness relief less Rs. 403/-which he had surrendered, and similarly from 1.1.1996, he became entitled to the pension fixed under the 5th Pay Commission less the amount of Rs. 403/-. After the 4th Pay Commission, the full pension so calculated comes to Rs. 1267/- out of which Rs. 403/- [which was surrendered under Rule 37-A(1)(b)] had to be deducted and thus he was entitled to Rs. 864/- per month as pension till 13.12.95. Thereafter in terms of the 5th Pay Commission's report the applicant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4073/- less Rs. 403/-(which was surrendered under Rule 37-A(1)(b) which comes to Rs. 3670/-. The schedule of calculation is shown at Annexure-V. On the basis of the above, the applicant sought for the above reliefs in the present application.
5. The respondents filed their reply statement contending that the Dearness Relief on full pension has been authorised to applicants after the receipt of O.M. dated 12.7.2000 and his claim to deduct Rs. 403/- has not been taken into account as per rules and orders. The applicant has been given replies in this regard to his representations vide letter dated 9.5.01 on receipt of directions from the Headquarters. The applicant cannot be treated at par with other Central Government pensioners as he surrendered 2/3rd pension under Rule 37-A(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rs. 403/- is the 2/3rd of his pension at the time of payment of lump sum amount. When the pension is notionally revised and consolidated, the 2/3rd of pension so surrendered is also revised and consolidated. This has been done as per Govt. of India orders issued from time to time. The respondents also contended that the action taken by them is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court as stated in Para 6(A) of the O.A. The respondents have paid whatsoever the applicant is entitled to as per the Supreme Court judgments and therefore he is not entitled for any more money. The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents reiterating that the entire pension is payable to him less actual amount commuted on receiving as terminal benefit viz. Rs. 403/- which is liable to be deducted, together with the entire amount of Dearness Relief which cannot be reduced under any circumstances because of the judgment of the Supreme Court. He also contended the very fact that Para 4 of O.M. dated 5.3.87 has been deleted by issuing O.M. No. 4/3/86-P&PW(d) of Min., of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions dated 30.9.96 is the proof of the soundness of his claim. He further contended that the action of the respondents in reducing the entire pension and Dearness Relief by 2/3rd is totally opposed to the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Office Memoranda which propose such deductions be made are invalid and cannot be enforced against him.
7. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides.
8. It is seen from the above undisputed facts that the applicant joined service as Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Accountant General, Orissa in its branch in Puri on his appointment by direct recruitment and was in continuous service in Central Government for a period of 28.5 years from 27.11.1950 to 31.5.1979 and while he was working as Accounts Officer in the office of the 2nd respondent, he was sent on deputation to Hyderabad to be appointed in Computer Maintenance Corporation Limited as Accounts Manager. Thereafter he was permitted to retire voluntarily from service of the 1st Respondent viz., Government of India, to be absorbed permanently in CMC Ltd., with effect from 1.6.1979. His pension on voluntary retirement is fixed as Rs. 604/- per month and the said amount was paid to him upto 27.6.1980. The applicant was allowed to commute a sum of Rs. 211/- nearly equivalent to 1/3rd pension drawn by him under Sub-rule 1(a) of Rule 37-A of CCS (Pension) Rules and Rule 5(1) of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. Further he was also permitted to commute the balance amount of pension of Rs. 403/- representing 2/3rd of the pension on receipt of terminal benefits equal to the commutation value subject to the condition that he surrenders his right of drawing 2/3rd of his pension in accordance with Rule 37-A(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules prevailing at that time. The relevant provisions of Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules are extracted hereunder:
"37-A. Payment of lump sum amount to persons on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body (1) Where a Government servant referred to in Rule 37 elects the alternative of receiving the death-cum-retirement gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of pension, (he shall, in addition to the death-cum-retirement gratuity), be granted:
(a) on an application made in this behalf a lump sum amount not exceeding the commuted value of one-third of his pension as may be admissible to him in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules; and
(b) Terminal benefits equal to the commuted value of the balance amount of pension left after commuting one-third of pension to be worked out with reference to the commutation tables obtaining on the date from which the commuted value becomes payable subject to the condition that the Government servant surrenders his right of drawing two-thirds of his pension."
9. As matters stood thus, consequent upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court reported in 1996(2) SCC 187 in the case of "Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr." the commuted value of 1/3rd portion of the pension which is equivalent to Rs. 201/- has been restored to the applicant after the expiry of the period of 15 years from the date of the said commutation by the 1st respondent. It was held in the above decision that, "Central Government servants absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises and deemed to have retired from Government service from the date of such absorption and commuting the entire pension, held, entitled to restoration of one-third of the fully commuted pension after the expiry of 15 years as per the decision in common cause case--Contrary provision in O.M. dated 5.3.1987 violates Arts. 14 and 16."
It was further held that, "A clear-cut distinction is made in Rule 37-A itself between one-third portion of pension to be commuted without any condition attached and two-third portion of pension to be received as terminal benefits with condition attached with it. It follows that so far as commutation of one-third of the pension is concerned, the petitioners herein as well as petitioners in "Common Cause" case stand on similar footing with no difference. So far as the balance of two-third pension is concerned, the petitioners herein have received the commuted value (terminal benefits) on condition of their surrendering of their right of drawing two-thirds of their pension. This was not the case with the petitioners in "Common Cause" cases. That being the position the denial of benefit, given to "Common Cause" petitioners, to the present petitioners violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The reasoning for restoring one-third commuted pension in the case of "Common Cause" petitioners equally applies to the restoration of one-third commuted pension in the case of these petitioners as well. Presumably the respondents realising the fallacy have withdrawn the scheme of permitting commutation of full pension by O.M. No. 4/42/91-P and PW(D) dated 31.3.1995."
10. It is further clarified by the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision reported in (1999) 9 SCC 58=1999(1) SLJ 26 (SC) in the case of "Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Govt. Employees in Public Enterprises and Anr. v. Arvind Verma and Ors." that, "Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) absorbees, like other Central Government pensioners, too are entitled to attendant benefits like revision of pension, arising as a result of the restoration."
11. In Para 6 of the above decision it was observed as follows:
"We make it clear that the respondents are liable to restore not only the pension as ordered by this Court in the said judgment but also all the attendant benefits as given to the Central Government pensioners."
12. In view of the above said judgment of the Supreme Court, the applicant became entitled to restoration of his 1/3rd pension as it was enhanced from time to time as a result of the recommendations made by the various Pay Commissions appointed by Union of India from time to time.
13. The grievance of the applicant is that though the 1st respondent restored the pension in the case of all other pensioners by its Decision No. 2 under Rule 10 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, it was not extended to the applicant or those who were similarly placed. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that though the applicant became entitled to restoration of his pension as it was enhanced from time to time as a result of the recommendations made by the various Pay Commissions appointed by Union of India from time to time less amount of Rs. 403/- representing 2/3rd of the pension in respect of which he received terminal benefits calculated on the basis of commutation tables in force, at the relevant time, together with all the benefits of interim relief enhancement of pension and enhanced dearness relief as adopted from time to time by Union of India in respect of its retired employees. The said procedure has not been adopted in respect of the applicant and other similarly placed employees of the Public Sector Undertakings. It is further pointed out by him that though in the beginning the 1st respondent has refused to pay the dearness relief on full pension to the applicant, on a direction issued by the Supreme Court in its order dated 26.4.2000 such Dearness Relief on full pension is paid to the applicant, but at the same time the 1st respondent reduced the amount of 2/3rd of the pension thus arrived at as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission. It is also explained by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be paid full pension together with full dearness relief less Rs. 403/- which he had surrendered during the period from 28.6.1995 to 31.12.1995 on the basis of the report of the 4th Pay Commission and if it is so calculated his full pension comes to Rs. 1267/- per month during said period out of which Rs. 403/- which was surrendered under Rule 37-A(1)(b) has to be deducted and the applicant is entitled to Rs. 864/- per month as pension from 28.6.95 upto 31.12.1995. Thereafter in terms of the 5th Pay Commission report the applicant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 4073/- less Rs. 403/- [which was surrendered under Rule 37-A(1)(b)] which comes to Rs. 3670/- per month from 1.1.1996. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that instead of paying the said amount, the applicant was paid only Rs. 422/- per month by way of pension during the period from 28.6.1995 to 31.12.1995 and Rs. 1357/- per month during the period from 1.1.1996 onwards after deducting 2/3rd of the amount from the pension fixed as shown in Annexure-V. In other words, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that out of the revised pension amount fixed including the full dearness relief, only Rs. 403/- per month is to be deducted representing 2/3rd value of the surrendered portion of the pension and the 1st respondent is not entitled to deduct 2/3rd of the revised pension amount fixed as has been done. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 4 SCC 469 in the case of "P.V. Sundara Rajan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors." Wherein it is observed in Para 13 as follows:
"The Government instructions also show that the dearness relief is granted to compensate the pensioners for erosion in the value of money due to rise in the cost of living. Anything which is not a part of pension has to be paid in full insofar as those who have commuted one-third pension. Nothing of substance could be shown by Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, so as to deprive the grant of benefit of dearness relief on full pension to these public sector obsorbees on a par with Central Government pensioners. Directions in this regard have been issued by this Court from time to time but applicants are still being deprived of this benefit. We give to the respondents a final opportunity to grant to the applicants the benefit of dearness relief on pension as aforesaid within a period of three months."
14. Placing reliance on the above directions given by the Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is entitled to grant of the benefit of dearness relief on full pension on par with Central Government pensioners and the 1st respondent is not entitled to deduct 2/3rd of the said dearness relief payable to the applicant as is now of resorted to by him. In view of the above directions given by the Supreme Court, we agree with the said submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant and we find that the 1st respondent is not justified in deducting 2/3rd of the refixed pension after adding dearness relief on full pension amount. Since the pension payable to the applicant after revision of the pension on the basis of the 4th Pay Commission report is fixed as Rs. 1357/-including dearness relief on full pension, the 1st respondent is entitled to deduct only Rs. 403/- representing 2/3rd value of the pension surrendered by him and the applicant is entitled to monthly pension of Rs. 864/-during the period from 28.6.1995 to 31.12.1995. Similarly, we find that the 1st respondent was not justified in deducting 2/3rds of the pension amount of Rs. 4073/- refixed with effect from 1.1.1996 and we find that the 1st respondent is entitled to deduct only Rs. 403/- out of the said amount and the applicant became entitled to receive the monthly payment of Rs. 3670/- from 1.1.1996 onwards. The learned Counsel for the applicant also has filed affidavits of one Mr. Y. Subrahmaniam and Mr. N. V. Krishna Murthy who are retired Central Government employees to show that in their cases only actual commuted sum of pension is being deducted from out of the refixed revised pension payable to them. Mr. Y. Subrahmaniam who is a retired Accounts Officer has submitted in his affidavit that he retired from service on 31.7.1985 on attaining the age of 58 years and his pension was fixed as 1095/-. He commuted a sum of Rs. 365/- which he was entitled to under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 on the same day. So from 1.1.1985 till 31.12.85 he was paid Rs. 730/- by deducting Rs. 365/- from his pension of 1095/-. From 1.1.86 on the basis of the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission his pension was fixed at Rs. 1276/- and he was paid Rs. 911/ by deducting Rs. 865/- till 31.12.1995. He further explained that from 1.1.1996 till the date of filing the affidavit his full pension is calculated at Rs. 4371/- per month under 4th Pay Commission report and that he was being paid Rs 4006/- per month after deducting only Rs 365/- upto 31.7.2000 and thereafter his full pension was restored. Thus he explained that only 365/- per month representing commuted portion of the pension was being deducted from his pension throughout till 31.7.2000 and thereafter his full pension was restored. Even Mr. N.V. Krishna Murthy who also filed affidavit who has also retired as Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad with effect from 31.1.83 on attaining the age of 58 years has also stated in his affidavit that only Rs. 264/- per month representing commuted portion of his pension is being deducted from his pension fixed at the time of retirement and also from the pension revised and refixed from time to time on the basis of the recommendations of the 4th and 5th Pay Commissions. Accordingly his full pension was restored with effect from 31.1.98. Since it has been clearly held in the above referred decision of the Supreme Court that even Public Sector absorbees who commuted 1/3rd pension are entitled for the grant of the benefit of Dearness Relief on full pension on par with Central Government pensioners, we find that the applicant is entitled to receive pension payable on similar calculation and the 1st respondent is not entitled to deduct more than Rs. 403/- per month representing surrendered portion of the pension on receiving terminal benefits from the refixed pension amount payable to the applicant on the basis of the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations. At this stage it is pointed out by the learned standing Counsel for the respondents that in Para 14 of the above decision reported in ((2000) 4 SCC 475) it was also held that, "The parity claimed by Lt. Col. Malhotra and other absorbees who had commuted 100% pension, in our view, is entirely, misplaced. The contention that what is commuted or given up is an amount and not the right to receive pension or right to receive post-commutation revision and attendant benefits including dearness relief on the gross entitled pension on the rates they were granted to other Government pensioners, is only illusory. The decision in the case of State of T.N. v. V.S. Balakrishnan (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 204, on which reliance was placed by Mr. Gopal Subramanium Senior Advocate, has no applicability to the point in issue. Those who commuted 100% pension, continued to remain non-pensioners till their pension is restored. In Welfare Assn. case persons who commuted the full pension and who will not be given any monthly pension by deeming monthly pension to have been reduced to nil have been treated as a separate category. Those who commute 100% pension are not entitled to the benefit of dearness relief on full pension or other benefits as claimed herein. We also do not find any discrimination insofar as this class is concerned."
15. Placing reliance on the said portion of the above decision it is argued by the learned standing Counsel for the respondents that the case of the applicant comes under the said category of persons as he also commuted 100% of his pension. But we are unable to accept this contention since it is found from the admitted facts that the applicant has commuted only 1/3rd of the pension without any condition and commuted the remaining 2/3d portion of the pension receiving terminal benefits subject to the condition imposed that he would not claim the same. In view of that distinction maintained, the applicant became entitled to restoration of 1/3rd of the full commuted, pension after the expiry of 15 years with all attendant benefits including right to receive the post commuted revision and attendant benefits including dearness relief on the full pension in view of the law laid down in Para 13 of the above decision and the earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 (2) SCC 187 (supra).
16. For all the above reasons, we find that the applicant is entitled for declaration that the impugned letter dated 9.5.2001 of the second respondent is not justified in interpretation that he is entitled to deduct 2/3rd of the revised and refixed pension payable to the applicant and that only 1/3rd of the refixed pension is to be paid to him.
17. In the result this O.A. is allowed and the impugned letter dated 9.5.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent is declared void and illegal being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the law declared by the Supreme Court. The respondents are directed to pay the applicant the amounts as mentioned in Annexure-V by way of pension and arrears due to him and also pay the applicant the amounts which have been fallen short of the said amount claimed by the applicant during the period from 28.6.1995 to 31.12.1995 in terms of the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission and from 1.1.1996 onwards in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and thereafter in accordance with any such revised fixation of pension as the 1st respondent may make from time to time. It is further declared that the various paragraphs in the Office Memoranda mentioned in Annexure-VI to the present application are invalid and not binding on the applicant and that the 2nd respondent is entitled to deduct only the surrendered portion of the original pension amounting to Rs. 403/- from the revised pension. In the circumstances we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.