S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE controversy here is with regard to the date from which the appellant Ram Narayan Gupta became entitled to payment of full pension. It was in August, 1927 that the appellant Ram Narayan Gupta had joined service as an Assistant teacher. He retired in February 1957 on attaining the age of superannuation. He held the post of Deputy Director of Education at that time.
(2.) THE post held by the appellant was not a pensionable one. He came under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and consequently, on retirement he was paid not only his own share of contribution to the Provident fund but also the Government's contribution to it. Later on option became available to him under the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund -cum -Pension Insurance Rules 1948 and in exercise thereof he opted for acceptance of the Government's contribution to his provident fund with reduced pension throughout. The pension payable to the appellant was commuted, as required, in terms of the provisions of Rules 16 of the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund -cum -Pension Insurance Rules 1984. This worked out to Rs. 483.33 paise and the deduction from it in lieu of the Government's share of contribution to the appellant's provident fund account at Rs. 122.20 paise per month, leaving the net pension payable to be Rs. 361.13 paise per month. The appellant continued to be paid pension at this rate till July, 1985 after which, by virtue of the government order of July 20, 1985, full pension became payable to him with effect from August, 1985.
(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. S.P. Gupta, Counsel for the appellant, Ram Narayan Gupta's entitlement to full pension arose not from the said Government order of July 20, 1985 but from November 14, 1964, this being the date when the government's share of contribution to the appellant's provident fund stood fully repaid by the monthly deductions from his pension. This contention constitutes the basis of the appellant's further claim for refund of the amount, deducted from his pension after this date i.e. November 14, 1964. Reliance being placed in this behalf, upon the judgment of the Division Bench in R.A. Beharwal v. State of U.P. W.P. 2705 (1984) decided on September 13, 1985 where in dealing with a similar situation, it was held "Once the contribution stood paid no further deductions could be made. It would amount to reduction of pension and that could not be done. The pension is reduced for realisation of government money and for no other purpose.";