AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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/VIIH.C80/84, dated 2931989 and 1758/VIIH.C80/84, dated 2171989 (Annexures VI and XI to the writ petition by which the State Government rejected the petitioners'' representations regarding fixation of pay), a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to comply with the terms of the contract as embodied in para (2) of the order of re appointment (G.O. No. 3060/VIIH.C80/84, dated 10111986 (AnnexureI 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. C31393/X958/80, dated 2071985 (Annexure X to the writ petition) also apply to reemployed pensioners.
The petitioner retired as Dy. Registrar of this Court on 2821983 and at the time of his retirement was drawing basic salary of Rs, 2200 plus Rs. 7500 as personal pay exclusive of clearness and other allowances. It is alleged that on the asking of the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court, the State Government sanctioned the petitioner''s reappointment on an excadre post of Officer on Special Duty in the office of Hon''ble Chief Justice on 1011 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 12111986 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 reemployment.
According to the petitioner he should have been paid total emoluments, upon his reemployment 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 1407 7257 3367
.00 +
Pay
R s .
2275
3600 Gra 5642
.15P. n d .00
Total
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 Government which were rejected vide Annexures VI and IX. Aggrieved by it he has come to this Court.
The respondents have filed counteraffidavits 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 reemployed, the Civil Service Regulations and the other relevant Government Orders upon the point.
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.
In the petition, the petitioner has at some places stated his posting as Officer on Special Duty as reappointment and at others reemployment. The order dated 10111986 of the State Government and dated 12111986 of the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court clearly show that the petitioner was reemployed for one year, not reappointed, as Officer on Special Duty on an ex cadre post. This is amply clear from Para 1 of the G.O. dated 10111986. The Rules relating to reemploymentand not reappointment, shall, therefore, apply in the instant case.
Article 510 of Chapter XXI of Civil Service Regulations deal with reappointment and not with reemployment and, therefore, that article would not be applicable in the instant case. Article 520 would apply.
In paras 4 and 8 of the writ petition the petitioner has described his reemployment on contract to excadre post of Officer on Special Duty in terms of G.O. dated 10111986 and the subsequent appointment letter dated 12111986 of Hon''ble Chief Justice.
The translated version of para (2) of the G.O. dated 1011 1986 as given in para 8 of the writ petition reads as follows:
"The said officer will be paid during the period of reemployment fixed pay which was last drawn including the entire pension or the maximum of the scale of pay of the post of reemployment, 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."
The parties are bound by the terms of the reemployment letter.
It is clear that the petitioner''s total emoluments would include the entire pension 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 reemployment would not include the entire 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 conceded by the petitioner that the total emoluments payable to him would include the pension to which the petitioner was entitled, a reemployed person cannot get both pension and full salary.
In para 2 of the G.O. dated 10111986 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) the word used is "Sakal pension" or the entire pension. In the G.O. No. Sa31443/X930/83 dated 15121983, Annexure CA1 to the counteraffidavit the position with regard to the fixation of pay of a retired government servant reemployed by the State Government has been clarified with reference to Article 520 of the Civil Services Regulations. The petitioner on reemployment 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 deathcumretirement gratuity. The petitioner, it would appear, was rightly given Rs. 949.85 P. along with admissible allowances as emoluments during his reemployment as Officer on Special Duty in Hon''ble Chief Justice''s Office. The representations made by him were rightly rejected by the Accounts Section of the High Court and also by the State Government.
The writ petition is without substance 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 971991 passed by this Court.