http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI SV BHIMA BHATTA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   236        1996 SCALE  (2)SP43

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2835 OF 1996          (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20571 of 1993)                          O R D E R      SLP (C) No. 20571/93 taken on Board.      We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.      Leave granted.        Shri  S.R. Bhat,  learned counsel for the appellants, contended  that   during  the   period  of   fluctuation  of superannuation of  the Government servants between 55 and 58 years  and   continuation  upto  60  years,  the  Government ultimately had  enhanced superannuation  to  58  years  with liberty in  public interest  to appoint  for further  period upto 60  years the  persons who  continued in service beyond the normal period of superannuation are also entitled to the pension on  the basis  of scale  of pay  drawn  by  them  on the date  of their  superannuation, i.e.,  60 years  and the pension   should    be   computed    accordingly   including the period  of 3  years during  which they  had continued in service. On  the other  hand, Shri Nagaraja, learned counsel for the State, contended that the right of the Government to superannuate the  employee in  exercise of    the  statutory power was  upheld by  this Court.  The  payment  of  pension requires to be decided on the date  on which the employee is required to  retire and- the residue period would be treated as fortuitous.  We need  not decide this question in view of the  fact   that  this  Court,  while  issuing  notice,  has expressly limited  to the  question as to right of the State to recover  the pension  already paid to them. Shri Nagaraja has fairly  stated that  the State  has no objection and the State would  not recover  the pension  already paid to them; the notice  is limited only to that extent. We hold that the State is not entitled to recover the pension already paid to them computing  the pension as if the respondents retired at the age  of 60 years. The larger question is left open since that is  not the  matter on  which the  notice  was  issued.

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

Consequently, the State is free to fix the pension according to rules.      The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.