http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: R P KAPUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/08/1999

BENCH: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, & N. SANTOSH HEGDE.

JUDGMENT:

M. JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

Leave granted.               This  is  an appeal by the appellant (  party-          in-person)  against  the  judgment of  the  Central          Administrative  Tribunal,  Chandigarh   Bench,   in          O.A.No.   423/HR/94 dated 11.10.96.  At the time of          the  admission  of  the Special Leave  Petition  on          17.2.98, limited notice had been issued restricting          the  dispute  to the question whether  pension  and          retiral benefits are to be computed on the basis of          revised  scales  of  pay.    That  order  reads  as          follows:

             "The grievance of the petitioner appears to be          that  though pension payment order has been made in          his  favour but the pension has not been calculated          at  the  revised pay scales.  It is submitted  that          none  of the retiral benefits have been  calculated          at  the  revised  scales.    Issue  notice  to  the          respondents limited to the said question".

             At  the  outset,  we  may state  that  we  are          concerned  in this case with compulsory  retirement          of  a government servant as a matter of  punishment          after  a regular disciplinary inquiry.  We are  not          here  concerned with a case where a public  servant          is retired compulsorily in public interest.

              The  facts  of  the  case,  relevant  to  the          dispute,  are  as  follows:  The  appellant  joined          service on 19.11.1971 in the Indian Railway Service          of  Signal Engineers (Class II). On the  ground  of          certain  misconduct, he was suspended from  service          on  21.1.1982, pending a disciplinary  inquiry.  At          the conclusion  of the inquiry, he was compulsorily          retired under an order dated 17.11.1992, after  due          consultation   with   the  Union   Public   Service          Commission.  The material part of that order  which          became  effective  from the date  of  its  service,          namely, 25.11.92, reads as follows:-

             "The  President  has,  therefore,  decided  to          impose  on Sri R.P.  Kapur, a penalty of compulsory

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

        retirement  from  service with the  condition  that          while  the  payment  during the  entire  period  of          suspension from 21.1.1982 to the date of service of          this  order, will be restricted to the  subsistence          allowance  drawn,  this  period may be  allowed  to          count  as qualifying service for pension but for no          other purpose."

             On  28.5.93,  an  order   was  passed  by  the          Railways  (P.52 of the paper book) that "since  the          appellant  was  paid   only  subsistence  allowance          during  the  period of suspension upto the date  of          compulsory  retirement,  the relevant period of  10          months  for  calculation of average emoluments  for          pension  would  be  the one relating to  10  months          period  preceding  21.1.1982",  i.e.  the  date  on          which   he   had  been   initially   placed   under          suspension.   In other words, instead of  computing          the  pension on the basis of the average emoluments          i.e.   subsistence allowance drawn in the 10 months          before 25.11.92, the date of compulsory retirement,          it was proposed to compute the pension on the basis          of  the  average emoluments, namely the  pay  drawn          during the 10 months before the order of suspension          dated 21.1.1982.  The result was that the appellant          became  disentitled for computation on the basis of          75% of the pay as revised w.e.f.  1.1.1986.

                            On  the  basis  of  the  above  order   dated          28.5.1993,  the  impugned  order   dated  25.6.1993          (see  P.  39-40 of the paper book), was  passed  by          the respondents  taking the 10 months ’pay’  before          suspension 21.1.1982 at Rs.1250/- p.m. They arrived          at a monthly average of Rs.1618.22 and computed the          pension  at Rs.518, deducted Rs.171/- being 1/3  of          the  pension  commuted,  and  together  with  other          inputs arrived at a figure of Rs.1178/- p.m. w.e.f.          25.11.1992.   Family  pension  and  other   retiral          benefits  were also  computed on that basis  .   It          appears  from  the counter filed on 9.3.99  by  the          respondents,  that  pursuant to certain  orders  in          O.A.265  of  1994  dated  4.7.96  of  the   Central          Administrative  Tribunal,  Chandigarh  Bench,   the          above  order was slightly modified by  arriving  at          Rs.1668.22  as the monthly average and pension  was          fixed at Rs.529 and brought on par w.e.f. 1.1.86 at          Rs.1192/-   p.m. plus variable Dearness  allowance.          These figures were based on the average  emoluments          ten months  prior to 21.1.1982 and not the  average          of  the   subsistence  allowance  paid   during  10          months before 25.11.92.

             The  appellant has placed on record the orders          of  the Chief Personnel Officer, N.E.  Railway ( at          P.42  of the paper book) dated 4/5.10.1988 to  show          that after 1.1.1986, initially his pay was computed          in  the revised-scale of Rs.2200-4000 and fixed  at          Rs.2650/-  p.m.   w.e.f.  1.1.86 and on that  basis          his subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the          pay  was fixed as above under sub rule (ii) of Rule          2043 (FR 53) R-II.  That order reads as follows:

             "In  terms of Central Administrative Tribunal,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

        Guwahati’s  Judgment in case NO.GC 171/87, the  pay          of  Shri  R.P.  Kapur, (ASTE, under suspension)  in          the revised scale of Rs.2200-4000/- (RSRP) is fixed          @Rs.2650/- with effect from 1.1.86

             This   has   been  certified  by  the   FA   &          CAO/EGA/Maligeon  vide his endorsement No.Nil dated          3.10.89.

             Since  Shri R.P.  Kapur, is under  suspension,          subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the pay          fixed as above may be drawn/adjusted accordingly in          terms of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 2043 (FR 53) R-II.

                                       Sd/-(Illegible)                             For Chief Personnel Officer                                            N F Railway

              No.202E/2/60(O) Loose                Dated 4/5.10.1988"

             (It  may here be noted that while according to          the appellant, after 1.1.1986, the pay was re-fixed          at  Rs.2650/-  p.m., the counter affidavit  of  the          respondents  in  the Tribunal put  the  re-fixation          after 1.1.86 at Rs.3300/- p.m.).

             The  appellant, therefore, contends that  when          the  subsistence allowance is 75% of pay instead of          adopting  the  75% of the average of 10 months  pay          i.e.   average of Rs.2650/- p.m.  for 10 months (or          Rs.3300/-  as  stated in the counter) -  being  the          amount  per month paid in the last 10 months before          the  compulsory  retirement  on  25.11.1992,-   the          respondents  have wrongly computed the pension  and          all  other retiral benefits illegally on the  basis          of  Rs.1250/-  p.m.  the pay during the  10  months          preceding the order of suspension dated 21.1.82.

             We  shall  now  refer to the response  of  the          respondents  in  their  initial  counter  affidavit          filed  before  the  Tribunal which,  on  its  face,          appears  to  be self contradictory.  It  is  stated          there  (  P.47 of the paper book) that the  Railway          Board  in  consultation  with   the  Department  of          Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare have taken the view          that   "since   the  petitioner   was   paid   only          subsistence   allowance   during   the  period   of          suspension,  the  relevant period of 10 months  for          calculation  of average emoluments for the  pension          should  be  the  one relating to 10  months  period          preceding  21.1.82,  i.e.   the date on  which  the          petitioner  had  been kept under suspension".   The          above  contention in the counter is obviously based          on the order dated 28.5.93 referred to earlier.  It          is then stated in the counter rather curiously that          even if the average emoluments are fixed as per the          pay  revision w.e.f.  1.1.86, the pension will  not          increase.   This  peculiar logic in the counter  is          worth quoting:

             "It  is  pertinent to mention here  that  even          though  the pension was calculated on the basis  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

        pre-revised  scale as on 1.1.86, the pension of the          petitioner  has  been fixed at Rs.1178.00 which  is          equivalent  to  the revised pay scale as on  1.1.86          plus  normal relief as admissible form time to time          to  the pensioners.  Therefore, it is implied  that          the  petitioner  has  been  paid  his  due  pension          equivalent  to the revised pay scale as  admissible          in such case.  If his revised pay of Rs.3200/- were          taken  into  consideration  for   the  purpose   of          calculation  of  pension, he would be  getting  the          same  pension  i.e.   Rs.1178.00.   Therefore,  the          prayer  of  the  pensioner  has got  no  merit  and          deserves to be dismissed."

             It  is  not  clear,   mathematically  how  the          pension  computed on the pay drawn as per the  pre-          revised scale (Rs.1178 or Rs.1192 p.m.  as the case          may be), can be the same even if it computed on the          basis  of the pay revised w.e.f.  1.1.86 i.e.   Rs.          2650 (or Rs.3300 p.m.).

             It  was stated in another para ( para 4.11) of          the  same counter filed in the Tribunal that  "even          though  the  pay  of the petitioner  was  fixed  in          revised  scale of pay Rs.3000-4500, he did not draw          the  pay  because  of the fact that he  was  placed          under  suspension  w.e.f.  21.1.82 and he was  paid          only  the subsistence allowance during this  period          from 21.1.82 to 25.11.92 and not ’pay’ as stated by          the  petitioner".   It  was further stated  (  para          4.12)  "  .........   the calculation  of  pension,          gratuity  and  commutation was correctly  done  and          there  is  no  anomaly in calculation  taking  into          account  the  pay  of  the  petitioner  immediately          before  his suspension w.e.f.  21.1.82".  What  the          respondent meant was that inasmuch as the appellant          did  not drawn "full pay" as revised from  1.1.1986          but  only  "subsistence allowance" on such  revised          pay,  he could not claim any computation to be made          on  the basis of the subsistence allowance  between          1981  to 1992.  The reason was that pension was  to          be  based  on  full pay.  Full pay was  drawn  only          before the suspension in 1982.

             The  appellant  filed a rejoinder  before  the          Tribunal  and  submitted that the above  method  of          computation was not correct.

             The  O.A.   was dismissed by the  Tribunal  on          11.10.96  holding  that  the   contention  of   the          respondents  was  correct and that the  appellant’s          contention,  if  accepted would amount to  treating          the period of suspension as on duty.  It was stated          in that order of the Tribunal that the dismissal of          the  O.A.  would, however, be subject to the result          of  O.A.267/HR/94  where  the order  of  compulsory          retirement  was under challenge.  A review petition          filed  by the appellant was dismissed on 17.12.1996          holding  that the appellant’s "contention that  the          period  of  suspension  from  21.1.82  to  25.11.92          should  be  treated as period spent on duty"  could          not  be accepted in view of the terms of the  order          of compulsory retirement.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

             Aggrieved  by  the  judgment of  the  Tribunal          dated 11.10.96, this appeal has been filed.  Before          us,  the appellant has raised the same  contentions          as he raised before the Tribunal.

             A counter has been filed by the respondents in          this  Court  on  15.10.98 contending  that  in  the          circumstances  of the case, the appellant is to  be          treated  as one under suspension till 25.11.92, the          date  of  compulsory retirement.  The period  under          suspension "may count for any specific purpose e.g.          qualifying   service/leave  etc.     provided   the          competent authority passes a specific order to that          effect."  The President has passed a specific order          that the period in question may count as qualifying          service  for the purpose of pension and not for any          other  purpose.  "The special dispensation was made          by  the  Disciplinary  Authority only to  help  the          petitioner for spending 10 years under suspension".          It  is  further  stated  that "under  Rule  502  of          Railway  Manual  of  Pension Rules,  1950,  average          emoluments  should be determined with reference  to          emoluments drawn by a government servant during the          last  10 months of his service".  The said rule, it          is  said, has laid down that "if during the last 10          months of his service a government servant had been          under suspension, the period whereof does not count          as  service,  the  aforesaid period  of  suspension          should  be  disregarded in the calculation  of  the          average  emoluments and equal period before the  10          months shall be included".* Then it is stated:

                        "The petitioner had been under               suspension for more than 10 years  before               ----------------------------------------------               *We  may  here point out that Rule 502 of  the          1950 Rules has been examined by us from the Manual.          It  does  not contain any such provision as  quoted          above.   The  provisions quoted are obviously  from          Rule  50 of the Railway Services ( Pension)  Rules,          1993  which replaced the Manual of 1950.  In  fact,          in  the  additional  counter filed  on  9.3.99  the          respondents  have relied upon and set out only Rule          50  of  the 1993 Rules.  his compulsory  retirement          and,  therefore, even an equal period of 10  months          preceding  the  10 months of his  retirement  would          fall  within the suspension period during which  he          had drawn only subsistence allowance.  Thus, if the          whole  period  of the suspension period is  ignored          the relevant emoluments will be one relating to the          10  months  period preceding 21.2.82 from which  he          was placed under suspension".

             In  other words, it is accepted in the counter          that  the "suspension period is ignored".  Then  it          is further stated that (see P.92 of the paper book)          there   is  a   distinction  between   ‘subsistence          allowance’  and ‘pay’ and that pension can be  only          on  ’pay’ and that hence one has to go back to  the          period  10  months  before  21.1.82,  the  date  of          suspension.   Then comes an important plea that for          the peculiar contingency arising in the case of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

        appellant, there is no provision in the Rules which          permits  the computation of pension on  subsistence          allowance,  i.e.   even   though  such  subsistence          allowance  has  been computed at 75% of the pay  as          revised w.e.f.  1.1.1986.  That para in the counter          reads as follows:

             "Under  the  existing  rules,   there  is   no          provision  to  take the average of the  subsistence          allowance  for  calculating the average  emoluments          for  purposes of pension.  Since the petitioner did          not  draw regular pay and allowance in the  revised          scales  of pay w.e.f.  1.1.86 to 25.11.92, there is          no  scope  to calculate his average emoluments  for          the purpose of pension and other pensionary dues as          per the revised pay scales".

             After  the appellant filed his rejoinder, this          Court  directed  the  respondents  to  produce  the          relevant  Rules.  Thereafter, a further  additional          counter  was  filed on 9.3.99.  Reference was  made          there  to  Rule 50 of the Railway (Pension)  Rules,          1993.   That  Rule  is set out in  the  counter  as          under:

              "Rule 50 - Average Emoluments :  Average               emoluments   shall  be  determined   with               reference  to the emoluments drawn  by  a               railway  servant  during  the  last   ten               months of his service.

              NOTE  1:- If during the last ten  months               of his service a railway servant had been               been  absent  from the duty on  leave  of               which  leave salary is payable or  having               been   suspended  had   been   reinstated               without   forfeiture  of   service,   the               emoluments which he would have drawn, had               he   not   been  absent  from   duty   or               suspended,  shall be taken  into  account               for determining the average emoluments.

                   Provided  that any increase in  pay               (other than the increment referred to  in               Note  3  ) which is  not  actually  drawn               shall not form part of his emoluments.

              NOTE 2:- If, during the last ten  months               of  his  service, a railway  servant  had               been  absent from duty  on  extraordinary               leave,  or had been under suspension  the               period whereof does not count as service,               the   aforesaid   period  of   leave   or               suspension  shall be disregarded  in  the               calculation of the average emoluments and               equal period before the ten months  shall               be  included". (This rule corresponds  to               FR 34)".

             It is stated in the counter-affidavit that "as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

        per rule, if an employee is awarded a major penalty          and  the  suspension  period is treated  as  wholly          justified,  in  that  case, such  employee  is  not          entitled  for any benefit of service and the period          of  suspension cannot be treated as ’on duty’".  It          is   stated   that  the   President,  who  is   the          Disciplinary Authority, has passed a specific order          that  while the payment during the entire period of          suspension  will  be   restricted  to  ’subsistence          allowance  only’, the said period may be allowed to          be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of          pension  and not for any other purpose.  Hence, the          petitioner is not entitled to get any other benefit          for   the  suspended  period,   i.e.   21.1.82   to          25.11.92.   On the above reasoning, it is contended          that the "petitioner is not entitled for pension on          the revised pay-scale in the light of the aforesaid          rules".

             These are the relevant orders and the relevant          contentions on both sides.

             We  have  now  to  decide  whether  the  above          contentions   raised   in   the  various   counter-          affidavits are correct.

             We  shall first proceed to analyse Rule 50  of          the  Railway Services ( Pension ) Rules, 1993.  The          said Rule speaks of ’average emoluments drawn" by a          railway  servant during the last ten months of  his          service.   Note  1 below the said rule, it will  be          seen,  deals  with  a case of  ’reinstatement’  and          hence  Note  1 cannot obviously apply.  But  it  is          necessary to explain what it means.  It states that          if  the  person  suspended  is  reinstated  without          forfeiture  of  service,  the emoluments  which  he          "would have drawn" shall be taken into account.

             There  is a proviso to Note 1.  It states that          increase in pay which is ’not actually drawn’ shall          not  form  part  of his  emoluments.   Considerable          reliance  has  been placed on this proviso  by  the          respondents  to contend that the appellant has  not          drawn  the full revised pay w.e.f.  1.1.1986 but he          has drawn only subsistence allowance.  In our view,          this proviso cannot apply because Note 1 itself, as          seen  above,  does  not apply.  However,  what  the          proviso  means is that increase in pay not actually          drawn  i.e.   which  is only notionally  fixed  but          without   a   right  for  payment   -  as   in   E.          Gopalakrishna vs.  Union of India ( 1995 Supple (4)          SCC 205) - cannot go into the computation.

             We  then  come  to  Note 2  on  which  greater          reliance has been placed in the counter affidavits.          If one reads the Note 2 carefully, it is clear that          in  cases where during the last ten months of one’s          service,  the  person has been under suspension,  -          the  period whereof does not count as service,- the          said  period  of  suspension is to  be  disregarded          while computing pension.

             Reading  it  carefully, it will be  seen  that          only  if  the suspension period is not to count  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

        service,  the said period is to be disregarded.  In          our opinion, the words ’the period whereof does not          count  as  service’  are important and have  to  be          given  effect  to.   On  the  other  hand,  if  the          suspension  period  is liable to be reckoned,  then          obviously  the  said period cannot be  disregarded.          In our view, the respondents have obviously ignored          the said word ‘not’, and clearly misinterpreted the          said  Note  II below Rule 50.  In the case  of  the          appellant,  - in terms of the very language of  the          order  of  compulsory  retirement   passed  by  the          President  of India, the period of suspension is to          count   towards  "qualifying   service".   If   the          President,  as  the   Disciplinary  Authority,  has          directed  that the period of suspension shall count          as  qualifying  service  - it is, in  our  opinion,          wholly  impermissible for the Railways to omit  the          said  period  from  consideration on  the  specious          ground  that  before 25.11.92 appellant  has  drawn          only  subsistence allowance and not pay.  The  very          purpose  of the order of the President cannot  thus          be allowed to be defeated.

             We  may  also point out that under Rule 37  of          the  Pension Rules 1993, it is stated that where "a          railway  servant  is kept under suspension  pending          inquiry  into  his  conduct,  the  period  of  such          suspension  shall count as qualifying service  only          where  on  conclusion of such inquiry, he has  been          fully  exonerated  or the suspension is held to  be          wholly  unjustified and in other cases, the  period          of  such  suspension  shall not  count  unless  the          authority  competent to pass orders under the  rule          governing  such  cases expressly declares  that  it          shall  count  to such extent as that authority  may          declare...".   In  the  present case, there  is  an          express  direction  by the President to  count  the          service,  within  this Rule.  Therefore,  once  the          suspension  period  is directed to be  counted  for          computing  the  qualifying  service,   it  is   the          emoluments  drawn  at  the end of the  period  just          before  retirement that become relevant and not the          ’pay’ drawn before the commencement of suspension,-          which  in  this  case goes to a  period  ten  years          before  1992.  Further, it will be noticed that the          appellant  has  put in less than 20 years,  by  the          date  of his suspension on 21.1.1982 he having been          recruited  in  1971.  From 1971, the  service  upto          21.1.82  will  be  less than 20 years,  and  if  we          accept  the respondent’s contention no pension  can          in fact at all be paid.  It is not the respondents’          contention  that no pension need be paid.  This  is          again  one more reason as to why the contention  of          the respondent is to be rejected.

             We  shall  next refer to the other  contention          that the appellant has not drawn "emoluments" which          can  amount to ’pay’ during suspension and that  he          has  only  drawn ’subsistence allowance’  and  that          that  cannot  be  described as ‘pay’.   It  is  the          respondent’s  contention  that unless  ‘emoluments’          are  drawn  the  ‘average   emoluments’  cannot  be          computed.   The said contention, in our opinion, is          based  upon  a  misapprehension  that  ’subsistence          allowance’  does  not  come within  the  definition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

        ’emoluments’.  The respondents in this context have          failed to notice Rule 49 which immediately precedes          Rule  50.   As  we shall presently show,  a  proper          interpretation  of  Rule 49 read with Rule 1303  of          the Railway Establishment Code ( Part II) will lead          to  the conclusion that ‘suspension allowance’ also          comes within the definition of ‘emoluments’.

              Rule 49 defines ’Emoluments’ as follows:-

              "Rule  49: Emoluments:-  The  expression               (a)  ’emoluments’  for  the  purpose   of               calculating various retirement and  death               benefits, means the basic pay as  defined               in  clause (i) of Rule 1303 of  the  Code               (i.e.  the  Railway  Establishment  Code)               which  a railway servant   was  receiving               immediately  before his retirement or  on               the date of his death;

               (b) ’pay’ in these rules means the  pay               in  the revised scales under the  Railway               Services  (Revised  Pay)  Rules,   1986."

             Inasmuch as Rule 49 refers to Rule 1303 of the          Railway  Establishment  Manual ( Vol.2),  we  shall          refer  to the said rule 1303, (which corresponds to          F.R.9(21)(a)).  That Rule reads as follows:

             "Rule  1303:  Pay:  Pay means the amount drawn          monthly by a government servant as:-

             (i) the pay, other than special pay....

             (ii)  overseas  pay, special pay and  personal                     pay;  and

             (iii)  any other emoluments which may  be               specifically  classified  as pay  by  the               resident.

             Average  pay  -  Average  Pay  means  the               average monthly pay earned during the  12               complete months immediately preceding the               month  in  which the event  occurs  which               necessitate  the calculation  of  average               pay"

             Rule  49  refers to ’basic pay’ and Rule  1303          refers  to ’amount drawn’.  In our view, a combined          reading  of Rule 49(1) and Rule 1303 above referred          to  shows  that if full basic pay is  ‘emoluments’,          that  being the monthly amount drawn, then the  75%          of  the full basic pay will also be ‘emoluments’ in          the case of a person under suspension, it being the          amount  drawn  month  by month  by  the  government          servant.   Thus  the first condition is  satisfied.          The   other  requirement  of   the  definition   of          ‘emoluments’  for  purpose of pension is  that  the          amount is to be computed on the basis of emoluments          drawn during the 10 months before retirement.  This          condition cannot be disregarded by the respondents.          Thus   both  ingredients  of   the  definition   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

        ‘emoluments’  are  satisfied.  Further, it will  be          noticed  that Rule 49(2) specifically requires that          the  scales  as revised w.e.f.  1.1.1986 are to  be          taken  into  account  as per the  Railway  Services          (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986.  This sub-rule cannot be          allowed to be disregarded by the respondents.

             In  view  of  the  above  rule  position,  the          contentions  raised  in  the   counter  cannot   be          accepted.

             The  Tribunal,  in  our opinion, is  wrong  in          thinking  that if the subsistence allowance  before          1992  is adopted, it will amount to treating period          of  suspension as on ’duty’.  We may point out that          the petitioner is not asking that his pension is to          be fixed on the basis of the full salary payable in          the  10  months before 25.11.92.   The  appellant’s          plea  is  that  the pension is to be fixed  on  the          basis  of the subsistence allowance fixed and drawn          by  him in the 10 months preceding 25.11.92.   That          has  been  fixed  on  the basis of  the  scales  as          revised  w.e.f.   1.1.1986.   This   plea,  in  our          opinion,  is certainly permissible under the Rules.          On  the  other hand, if we have to go back  to  the          emoluments  drawn  before suspension i.e.   average          during  10  months  before 1982 -  then  that  will          amount  to  going by the pre-1982 emoluments  while          the  rule  requires that the emoluments  during  10          months  before  retirement  are to  be  taken  into          account.

             For all the reasons given above, we are of the          view  that  the appellant is entitled to  have  his          pension   fixed  on  the   basis  of  the   revised          subsistence allowance fixed and drawn by him as per          the  order  of  the Chief Personnel  Officer  dated          4/5/.10/1988,  as  per  the   pay  revision  w.e.f.          1.1.1986.   We may add that it is not clear whether          the  revised  pay has been fixed at Rs.2650/-  p.m.          w.e.f.   1.1.86  as  per  the order  filed  by  the          appellant or if it has been fixed at Rs.3300/- p.m.          as admitted by the respondents in the counter filed          before the Administrative Tribunal.  We, therefore,          declare  and direct as follows.  If the revised pay          is  indeed  Rs.2650/-  p.m.   and  his  subsistence          allowance  is  75% thereof, the appellant  will  be          entitled  to the 75% of Rs.2650/- to be treated  as          the  ’emoluments’ for the previous 10 months before          25.11.92  till which date he has been in service  (          even   if  he  was   under  suspension).    Average          emoluments,  for  purposes  of pension have  to  be          fixed on that basis.  If the re- fixation of pay is          Rs.3300/-  as stated in the respondents’ counter in          the  Tribunal,  the average emoluments have  to  be          worked  out on the basis of 75% of Rs.3300/- during          10  months  before 25.11.92.  If on such  fixation,          the  appellant is entitled to other additions  like          DA  etc.   and which are periodically revised,  the          same shall also be computed w.e.f.  25.11.1992.

                            The   pension  and  family   pension   shall,          therefore,  be re-computed on the above  basis  and          paid to the appellant w.e.f. 25.11.1992. The  other          retiral   benefits  will also be  re-fixed  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

        above basis w.e.f. 25.11.1992 and paid to him.  The          computation  of  the family pension shall  also  be          done  on that basis.  On account of the long  delay          and  denial  of pension and retiral benefits  on  a          wrong  interpretation of the Rules, we deem it  fit          to award 12% interest on all the arrears payable to          him  on the above basis in respect of  pension  and          all  benefits.  Arrears have to be computed with          effect  from the date of retirement on  25.11.1992.          The  appeal  is allowed as stated above  but  there          will be no order as to costs.