Thereafter, a further additional companynter was filed on 9.3.99.
The result was that the appellant became disentitled for companyputation on the basis of 75 of the pay as revised w.e.f.
These figures were based on the average emoluments ten months prior to 21.1.1982 and number the average of the subsistence allowance paid during 10 months before 25.11.92.
The reason was that pension was to be based on full pay.
Sd Illegible For Chief Personnel Officer N F Railway No.202E/2/60 O Loose Dated 4/5.10.1988 It may here be numbered that while according to the appellant, after 1.1.1986, the pay was re fixed at Rs.2650/ p.m., the companynter affidavit of the respondents in the Tribunal put the re fixation after 1.1.86 at Rs.3300/ p.m. The appellant, therefore, companytends 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 companynter being the amount per month paid in the last 10 months before the companypulsory retirement on 25.11.1992, the respondents have wrongly companyputed 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.
25.11.1992.
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 companynter filed before the Administrative Tribunal.
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 .
1.1.86 at Rs.1192/ p.m. plus variable Dearness allowance.
In other words, instead of companyputing 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 companypulsory retirement, it was proposed to companypute 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.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.10.96, this appeal has been filed.
The appellant filed a rejoinder before the Tribunal and submitted that the above method of companyputation was number companyrect.
21.1.82.
A review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on 17.12.1996 holding that the appellants companytention that the period of suspension from 21.1.82 to 25.11.92 should be treated as period spent on duty companyld number be accepted in view of the terms of the order of companypulsory retirement.
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 companypulsory retirement from service with the companydition 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 companynt as qualifying service for pension but for numberother purpose.
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 companyputed in the revised scale of Rs.2200 4000 and fixed at Rs.2650/ p.m. w.e.f.
At the companyclusion of the inquiry, he was companypulsorily retired under an order dated 17.11.1992, after due companysultation with the Union Public Service Commission.
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 companypulsory 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.
What the respondent meant was that inasmuch as the appellant did number drawn full pay as revised from 1.1.1986 but only subsistence allowance on such revised pay, he companyld number claim any companyputation to be made on the basis of the subsistence allowance between 1981 to 1992.
Average emoluments, for purposes of pension have to be fixed on that basis.
The pension and family pension shall, therefore, be re computed on the above basis and paid to the appellant w.e.f.
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 .
After the appellant filed his rejoinder, this Court directed the respondents to produce the relevant Rules.
25.11.1992 and paid to him.
The other retiral benefits will also be re fixed on the above basis w.e.f.
25.11.1992.
423/HR/94 dated 11.10.96.
The companyputation of the family pension shall also be done on that basis.
21.1.82 and he was paid only the subsistence allowance during this period from 21.1.82 to 25.11.92 and number pay as stated by the petitioner.
On the ground of certain misconduct, he was suspended from service on 21.1.1982, pending a disciplinary inquiry.
This is an appeal by the appellant party in person against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in A.No.
Family pension and other retiral benefits were also companyputed on that basis .
JAGANNADHA RAO,J. Leave granted.
It appears from the companynter filed on 9.3.99 by the respondents, that pursuant to certain orders in 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.
That order reads as follows In terms of Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahatis 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.
25.11.1992.
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 companyputed the pension at Rs.518, deducted Rs.171/ being 1/3 of the pension companymuted, and together with other inputs arrived at a figure of Rs.1178/ p.m. w.e.f.
Nil dated 3.10.89.
It was further stated para 4.12 the calculation of pension, gratuity and companymutation was companyrectly done and there is numberanomaly in calculation taking into account the pay of the petitioner immediately before his suspension w.e.f.
We, therefore, declare and direct as follows.
Full pay was drawn only before the suspension in 1982.
1.1.1986.
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.
