- (1.) THE petitioner, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the Government Orders contained in letters No. 493/vii-H. C-80/84, dated 29-3-1989 and 1758/vii-H. C-80/84, dated 21-7-1989 (Annexures VI and XI to the writ petition by which the State Government rejected the petitioners' rep resentations regarding fixation of pay), a writ of mandamus commanding the respon dents to comply with the terms of the con tract as embodied in para (2) of the order of re- appointment (G. O. No. 3060/vii-H. C-80/84, dated 10-11-1986 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) read with the provisions of Articles 520 and 521 of Chapter XXI of Civil Services Regulationsand a writ or order holding that the provisions of G. O. No. C-3-1393/x-958/80, dated 20-7-1985 (Annexure X to the writ petition) also apply to re-employed pensioners.
(2.) THE petitioner retired as Dy. Registrar of this Court on 28-2-1983 and at the time of his retirement was drawing basic salary of Rs, 2200 plus Rs. 75-00 as personal pay exclusive of clearness and other allowan ces. It is alleged that on the asking of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, the State Government sanctioned the petitioner's re-appointment on an ex-cadre post of Officer on Special Duty in the office of Hon'ble Chief Justice on 10-11 -1986 vide Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. THE Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court vide Annexure II to the writ petition appointed the petitioner on 12- 11-1986 on the aforesaid sanctioned post. THE petitioner was paid monthly emoluments as follows: Last pay drawn - Rs. 2200. 00 Personal Pay - Rs. 75. 00 Total Rs. 2275. 00 Less Pension (-) - Rs. 1029. 00 Less the amountequal to gratuity - Rs. 296. 15 Rs. 949. 35 P. D. A. , Addl. D. A. , T. R. A. and I. R. on Rs. 949. 85. In all the petitioner was paid Rs. 2097. 75 P. as total emoluments upon his re-employment. According to the petitioner he should have been paid total emoluments, upon his re-employment of Rs. 5642. 00 per month. The break up is as follows: Pay/ Addl. H. R I. R. and Total D. A. D. A. . A. Addl. I. R. 22757 18007 7027 7 7257 3367. 00 + Pay Rs. 75 3600 Gra 5642. 15p. nd. 00 Total 4. The petitioner made representation to the Accounts Department of the High Court which did not listen to him and then made representations to the State Govern ment which were rejected vide Annexures VI and IX. Aggrieved by it he has come to this Court. 5. The respondents have filed counter-affidavits stating inter alia that the petitioner's emoluments were rightly fixed and that he is not entitled to get anything more in terms of the conditions upon which he was re-employed, the Civil Service Regulations and the other relevant Govern ment Orders upon the point. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel of the parties. The petitioner was also given opportunity to represent his case personally before the Court. We have also perused the record. 7. In the petition, the petitioner has at some places stated his posting as Officer on Special Duty as re- appointment and at others re-employment. The order dated 10-11-1986 of the State Government and dated 12-11-1986 of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court clearly show that the petitioner was re- employed for one year, not re-ap pointed, as Officer on Special Duty on an ex- cadre post. This is amply clear from Para 1 of the G. O. dated 10-11-1986. The Rules relating to re-employmentand not re- ap pointment, shall, therefore, apply in the in stant case. 8. Article 510 of Chapter XXI of Civil Service Regulations deal with re-appoint ment and not with re- employment and, therefore, that article would not be ap plicable in the instant case. Article 520 would apply. 9. In paras 4 and 8 of the writ petition the petitioner has described his re-employ ment on contract to ex-cadre post of Officer on Special Duty in terms of G. O. dated 10-11-1986 and the subsequent appoint ment letter dated 12-11-1986 of Hon'ble Chief Justice. 10. The translated version of para (2) of the G. O. dated 10-11- 1986 as given in para 8 of the writ petition reads as follows: "the said officer will be paid during the period of re-employment fixed pay which was last drawn including the entire pension or the maxi mum of the scale of pay of the post of re-employ ment, whichever is less. Sri Malviya would be paid clearness allowance, city compensatory allowance, house rent allowance and other allowances on the total net pay and the entire pension. " 11. The parties are bound by the terms of the re-employment letter. 12. It is clear that the petitioner's total emoluments would include the entire pen sion which he was entitled to get at the time of the retirement. It cannot be argued that the total emoluments, payable to him on his re-employment would not include the en tire pension payable to him and that the entire pension would be over and above the total emoluments payable to the petitioner. In fact at the time of arguments, it was con ceded by the petitioner that the total emolu ments payable to him would include the pension to which the petitioner was en titled, a re-employed person cannot get both pension and full salary. 13. In para 2 of the G. O. dated 10-11-1986 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) the word used is "sakal pension" or the en tire pension. In the G. O. No. Sa-3-1443/x-930/83 dated 15-12-1983, Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit the position with regard to the fixation of pay of a retired government servant re-employed by the State Government has been clarified with reference to Article 520 of the Civil Services Regulations. The petitioner on re-employ ment was entitled to last pay drawn minus pension which also includes the amount of pension equivalent to gratuity. In this view of the matter a sum of Rs. 296. 15 P. was rightly deducted as pension equivalent to death-cum-retirement gratuity. The petitioner, it would appear, was rightly given Rs. 949. 85 P. along with admissible al lowances as emoluments during his re-employment as Officer on Special Duty in Hon'ble Chief Justice's Office. The repre sentations made by him were rightly rejected by the Accounts Section of the High Court and also by the State Govern ment. 14. The writ petition is without sub stance and is dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs. The petitioner is liable to return the entire amount paid to him in compliance of the interim order dated 9-7- 1991 passed by this Court. Petition dismissed. .;