AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
FOR,AS
Re-designation of Shri
Rajinder Tiku, General
Manager
(Tech) as Executive
Director (Technical) with
immediate effect and
extension of his service
for a period of one year
with effect from 01st
May, 2010.","Re-designation of Shri Rajinder
Tiku, General
Manager (In-charge)Projects&
Civil as Executive Director
(Technical) with immediate effect
and extension of his period of
service for a period of one year
w.e.f. 1st May, 2010, beyond his
normal superannuation age of 60
,"years in the Company. He will
continue to receive remuneration
based on the pay-benefits and
allowances drawn by his at the
time of his normal superannuation
date along with the due increment,
during the extended period of
service.
given all remunerations which he would have drawn, had he superannuated, in due course, on 30th April 2011.",
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Pension Payment,
Order which came to be issued, consequent on the petitioner’s superannuation on 30th April, 2011, showed his date of retirement as 30th April,",
2010, instead of 30th April, 2011, and computed his retiral benefits accordingly. Â",
Accordingly, the petitioner’s retiral benefits were also calculated on the basis of basic pay drawn by him on 30th April, 2010, rather than the",
basic pay drawn by him on 30th April, 2011, which, needless to say, was higher.",
The petitioner represented to the respondents. However, the petitioner’s representation stood rejected by the impugned communication, dated",
14th May, 2015, issued by the Deputy Manager in the office of Respondent No.1, which read thus:",
 “No. DM (HR)H/2015-16/38            Dt.14.05.2015,
Shri Rajinder Tiku,
Ex. Executive Director (Tech) IPGCL,
D-36, Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.",
Sub: Fixation of Pension and Payment of Retiral Benefits.,
Sir,",
Please refer to your correspondence on the above cited subject, regarding Fixation of your pension. In this regard the reply is as under:-",
1] Reference on the above subject, your case was sent to Department of Power, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for clarification regard the date from which",
your retirement benefits became due i.e. 01.05.2010 or 01.05.2011.,
2] In response, Dy. Secretary (Power), Department of Power, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has conveyed that the extension of service can be granted to",
certain categories of Govt. of Servant Only under FR 56 (d).,
3] In the same letter Dy. Secretary (Power) further conveyed that the extension of your service seems to be against the policy of the Govt.Â,
In view of the above it is to inform you that the decision of Pension Trust to release your pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.05.2010 seems to be,
appropriate.,
This is for favour of your kind information please.,
Yours sincerely,",
Sampan Padhi,
Deputy Manager-V.â€,
(Emphasis supplied),
In my view, the entire issue is a no brainer. Once the Office Order extending the service of the petitioner clearly stated that his service was",
extended for one year and that, during the said period, he would continue to receive remuneration based on pay benefits and allowances drawn by him",
at the time of his normal superannuation date, along with increments due for the months during the extended period of his service, there could be no",
question of treating his date of superannuation, for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as 30th April, 2010. The petitioner could either have retired on",
30th April, 2010, or had his service extended till 30th April, 2011. This is no half-way house.Â",
The reliance, by Respondent No.1, on FR-56 (d), is completely misplaced, as FR-56 (d) does not deal with retiral benefits at all, but prohibits grant",
of extension of service to a government servant beyond the age of sixty years.,
It is too late in the day for the Respondents, today, to invoke the FR-56(d). Having, on their own will and volition, extended the petitioner’s",
service till 30th April, 2011, and extracted work from him for the said extra period of one year the inevitable sequitur thereto has necessarily to",
follow.Â,
For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the decision of the respondents, to compute the retiral benefits of petitioner, by treating his date of",
retirement as 30th April, 2010, cannot sustain, either in law or on facts, and has, therefore, to be set aside. Â",
The date of retirement of petitioner, therefore, shall be treated as 30th April, 2011. The petitioner shall therefore be treated as having worked till",
30th April, 2011 and his retiral benefits shall stand computed from 1st May, 2011 instead of 1st May, 2010.",
Needless to say, all his retiral benefits would be computed on the basis of the pay-scale being drawn by him at the time of his actual retirement on",
30th April, 2011.",
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.,
Learned counsel for petitioner submits, at the Bar, that the implementation of this order has to be effected by the Delhi Vidyut Board Pension",
Trust.,
Accordingly, let a copy of this judgment be served by the petitioner on the Delhi Vidyut Board Pension Trust to ensure compliance.Â",