- (1.) Civil Appeals Nos. 6872-6875 and 7622-23/94 Learned counsel for the appellants states that in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. G. Vasudevan Pillay, (1995) 1 JT (SC) 417 : (1995 AIR SCW 891) they are not pressing these appeals. The appeals are dismissed as not pressed.
(2.) Civil Appeal No. 6890/94 Respondent No. 1 who was an ex-serviceman was re-employed by the appellant-Corporation as Lower Division Clerk. His pay was fixed at the minimum of the pay scale and he was also entitled to his full pension as an ex-serviceman. The Government Order of 8-2-83 inter alia, provides that in the case of ex-servicemen who retire before attaining the age of 55 years and are re-employed (in the case of personnel below the rank of a Commissioned officer) the entire pension may be ignored in fixing the pay on re-employment. This Government Order was in operation at the material time along with the Office Memorandum of 25-11-58.
(3.) Under the Office Memorandum of 25-11-58, re-employed pensioners were allowed only the prescribed scales of pay. The initial pay, on re-employment, was required to be fixed at the minimum of the scale of pay prescribed for the post in which the ex-serviceman was re-employed. However, it was provided that where the fixation of initial pay of a re-employed person, at the minimum of the prescribed scale of pay, would cause hardship, the pay may be fixed at a higher stage in the scale by allowing one increment for each year of service which the officer had rendered before retirement in a post not lower than that in which he was re-employed. Under the clarification which was issued pertaining to this Office Memorandum "hardship" was defined as follows : "There would be a case of hardship if on re-employment, the total amount received by the ex-serviceman namely, the minimum of the pay scale plus pension and pension equivalent of gratuity, whether ignorable or not, is less than the last pay drawn at the time of the retirement.";