V S MURTHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short and only question requiring consideration of this Court in this appeal, by special leave, from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, made in O.A. No. 542/87 on 18th of April 1990, is whether for calculating the pension, the amount paid by way of deputation (duty) allowance by Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited, Rasayani to the appellant, while on deputation from the Railways, is to be included The necessary and relevant facts are as follows:

(2.) The appellant was appointed as a Clerk, Grade-II, in the Office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Central Railways, Bombay V.T. on 25-1-1950. In 1953, he was promoted as Stock Verifier in the pay-scale of Rs. 80-220. While the appellant was so working, in 1979, he proceeded on deputation to join as a Vigilance Inspector in the Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [thereinafter referred to as HOCL] initially for a period of one year, which period was extended from time to time till he was permanently absorbed in HOCL on 8-12-1982. At the time of proceeding on deputation, the pay-scale of the appellant in the Central Railways was Rs. 490-30-640-35-81540-1055. On deputation, the pay of the appellant was regulated in terms of the FA and CAO's Office Memorandum, dated 12-12-1979, and the appellant received his pay, as admissible from time to time, plus the deputation (duty) allowance. The appellant was permanently absorbed in the HOCL with effect from 8-12-1982 following his resignation from the Central Railway. The appellant claimed his pensionary benefits from the Central Railways.

(3.) In accordance with the relevant orders of the Government of India, a pensionary employee on permanent absorption in a public sector undertaking, is entitled to the grant of pension on the basis of qualifying years of service etc. The Government of India, however, makes a departure in such cases, from the normal rule of commutation of pension to the extent of 1/3rd of the pension to full (100%) commutation of pension. In the case of appellant, on his request, 100% commutation of pension was allowed, by the Government of India. The calculation of pension was, however, made without taking into account the amount of deputation (duty) allowance of Rs. 150.per month, which the appellant -was drawing, while on deputation from the Central Railways, to the HOCL. It is pertinent to notice here that the appellant had opted for contributory provident fund and had received the benefit in respect thereof from the HOCL for the period for which he was on deputation. Having failed to persuade the authorities, through various representations, to include the deputation (duty) allowance for the purpose of calculation of his pension the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.