Punjab-Haryana High Court
B.D.Arora vs Accountant General (A&E) on 3 July, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 7117 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 7117 of 2011
Date of Decision : July 03, 2012
B.D.Arora
.... PETITIONER
Vs.
Accountant General (A&E), Haryana, Chandigarh
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash order dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-10), vide which legal notice/claim of the petitioner for recovery of the revised commuted value of pension from the date of the payment of that commuted value stands rejected and the recovery has been effected from the first date of payment of commuted value of the pension.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired as Chief Accounts Officer from the Irrigation CWP No. 7117 of 2011 2 Department, Haryana, on 31.08.2007. Commuted pension was paid to the petitioner on 03.03.2008 and as per Rule 11.14 of the C.S.R. Volume-II, the reduction in the amount of pension on account of commuted value has been effected from the date of receipt of the commuted value of the pension by the petitioner. It so happened that the pay scales were revised by the Government of Haryana and were made effective from 01.01.2006. Petitioner was thus entitled to the revised pension as per the new pay scales, which were effective from 01.01.2006 and accordingly, the pension of the petitioner was also revised. The result thereof was that the commuted value of the pension had increased and the said payment was paid to the petitioner of this amount on 18.12.2009 but while making the said payment, recovery of the commuted value of pension was effected from the petitioner w.e.f. 03.03.2008, the date of initial payment of commuted value of pension under the revised pay scales which the petitioner has assailed through the present writ petition in the light of Rule 11.14 of the C.S.R. Volume-II, according to which, the petitioner contends that the pension can be reduced only on payment of the commuted value and not prior thereto. He, accordingly, submits that the recovery, which has been effected from the petitioner, cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the Rule does not speak of first payment of commuted value or a subsequent payment of the commuted value of pension. It only CWP No. 7117 of 2011 3 talks about the payment as and when payment of the commuted pension is made. This peculiar situation has arisen because of the revision of pay scales from the date prior to the date of actual payment at a subsequent stage and this amount has to be paid to the petitioner because of the revision of the pay scales alone. This, the counsel for the respondents contends, is to relate back to the date of payment of first commuted value as the revised pension and the commuted value of pension has been assessed from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.08.2007. Since the commuted value of pension was initially paid to the petitioner on 03.03.2008, therefore, the adjustment has been made accordingly while making the payment of commuted value of pension in the revised pay scales. He, accordingly, submits that the present petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case.
Rule 11.14 of the C.S.R. Volume-II reads as follows:-
" The reduction in the amount of pension on account of commutation shall become operative from the date of receipt of the commuted value of the pension by the pensioner or three months after the issue of the authority asking the petitioner to collect the commuted value of the pension by the Accounts Officer, whichever is earlier."
A perusal of the above rule would show that the reduction in the amount of pension on account of commutation became CWP No. 7117 of 2011 4 operative from the date of receipt of the commuted value of the pension by the pensioner or three months after the issue of the authority when the petitioner is asked to collect the commuted value of pension, whichever is earlier. Since the revision of the pay scales has come into effect w.e.f. 01.01.2006, which decision was taken after the retirement of the petitioner on revision of pay scales and accordingly, the retiral benefits had to be re-calculated as far as the petitioner is concerned. Since the petitioner retired on 31.08.2007, the pay of the petitioner was revised and accordingly, the pensionary benefits were also to be re-calculated and re-assessed in the revised pay scales and the last pay drawn by him which resulted in increase of his pension. With the increase in pension, the commutation value of the pension also increases which resulted in payment of the amount, which is now to be assessed as per the revised pension. As the petitioner had been receiving pension w.e.f. 31.08.2007 but the commuted value of pension was paid to him from 03.03.2008, therefore, the date of payment of commuted pension would be 03.03.2008 for all intents and purposes as the adjustment had to be made as a consequence of the payment of arrears which was because of revision of the pay scales. What has been done by the respondents is only an adjustment of the amount of commuted value of pension and, in fact, there is no fresh payment of commuted value of pension. The only thing which has been done by the respondents is a fresh calculation on the basis of the pay revision and, therefore, CWP No. 7117 of 2011 5 it cannot be said that it is a payment which has been made because of some fresh right, which has accrued to the petitioner. In the light of the fact that the date of pension of the petitioner and the payment of commuted pension and other benefits relate back to the date of his retirement, the adjustment, as made by the petitioner, by making recovery to the enhanced payment is fully justified and is in accordance with Rule 11.14 of the C.S.R. Volume-II.
There being no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
July 03, 2012 JUDGE
pj