CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1996) 02 SC CK 0261

Bibhuti Bhushan Chaudhary vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 23 February 1996 · Citation: (1997) 11 SCC 390 : (1998) SCC(L&S) 167

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. C. Agrawal, J · G. T. Nanavati, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 323 Of 1994 With Slp (C) No. 10820 Of 1988

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 391 words

Writ Petition (C) No. 323 of 1994

1.

The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the period during which the petitioner was under suspension could be excluded for the purpose of computing the pension payable to him.

2.

The petitioner was employed as Station Master in the Railways. By order dated 19-1-1962 he was placed under suspension on account of his failure to join duty at the place of transfer. The said order of suspension continued in operation till 8-5-1970 when the petitioner was allowed to join duty. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-1-1980. It appears that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner but the same could not be completed till he retired. The petitioner has been paid subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions to the computation of the pension payable to the petitioner and has urged that although the subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension the said period has been excluded from the qualifying service of the petitioner for the purpose of computing the pension payable to him. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been paid the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, the said period of suspension could not be excluded from the qualifying service for the purpose of computing pension of the petitioner and the pension payable to the petitioner should be calculated by taking into account the said period of suspension as part of his qualifying service. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner is entitled to count the period of suspension as part of his qualifying service for the purpose of computing the pension payable to him. The amount of pension payable to the petitioner should be reassessed on that basis and the amount of arrears found payable to the petitioner as a result of such reassessment shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No orders as to costs.

SLP (C) No. 10820 of 1988

4.

In view of the above decision in Writ Petition (C) No. 323 of 1994, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition. The SLP is dismissed as not pressed.