The petitioners have further submitted that they are entitled to the aforesaid reliefs granted to all other Government pensioners, and the amount of relief to which pensioners are entitled and has been denied to them under the impugned Office Memorandum dated 13.2.
The office of the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Food and Agriculture determined the original pension payable to the petitioners per mensem.
32 of the companystitution was filed on behalf of the Welfare Association of absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises and this Court dismissed the said writ petition on April 12, 1990.
Under the said O.M. the term Pension includes for the purposes of ad hoc relief the companymuted portion of pension, if any.
1955 61 of 1983.
In case of petitioner No.
2 the original pension admissible was determined at Rs.287 per mensem payable from 9.2.1972.
2 8 EV/82 dated 10.10.1983 has sanctioned the grant of relief and ad hoc reliefs to Government servants who retired prior to 10th September, 1979 92.5 of their original pension subject to minimum of Rs.93 and maximum of Rs.463 with effect from 1st July, 1983.
The Ministry of Finance in their Office Memorandum No.
Manager and retired from the Government service.
The relief at those rates were recommended to be given to the Government pensioners as and when there was a 16 point rise in the 12 months average of the All India Working Class Consumer Price Index 1960 100 .
1.4.1979 as companyputed under the Liberalised Pension Formula irrespective of the date of their retirement.
13,592 and Rs.
2 after serving the Government in various capacities for the period from 5.11.1947 to 8.2.1972 20 years and 3 months was permanently absorbed on 9.2.1972 in Food Corporation of India as Sr.
15,040 in case of petitioner No.
This has been done by taking in view the decline in the purchasing power of the rupee and the original sanction being insufficient and meagre to sustain the pensioners.
1 and petitioner No.
2 respectively upto 29.2.1984.
It was further held in the above case that the companymutation does bring certain advantages to the companymittees and the class of Government officers whom the petitioner seeks to represent have derived such benefits.
The petitioner No.
I and petitioner No.
The Third Central Pay Commission was required to make its recommendations in the matter of providing relief to Government pensioners.
I received his pension Rs.240 per mensem for the period from 1.9.1971 to 29.10.1972.
v. Union of India, 1987 1 SCC 142 was claimed but the same was negatived by making a distinction that the Writ Petition Common Cause was on behalf of the Government servants who had companymuted their pension partially and this Court for the reasons indicated in the judgment came to hold that on the expiry of 15 years from the date of companymutation the entire pension revived.
Under the above Rules maximum of one third of the amount of admissible pension companyld be companymuted.
2 received his pension Rs.287 per mensem for the period from 9.2.1972 to 16.8.1972.
The case of the petitioners is that according to these Rules, an officer who has companymuted any part of this pension and an officer who has number opted for any companymutation both receive the full quantum of relief and ad hoc relief on full amount of original pension.
In the said writ petition benefit of Judgment of this Court in Common Cause a Registered Society Ors.
The Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum No.
The petitioner and other Government servants who opted for companymutation of their original pension in accordance with the Rules are being arbitrarily and without just and reasonable cause are deprived of the relief and ad hoc relief on companymutation in pursuance of the Office Memorandum dated 13.2.1976.
However, in the case of Government officers including Industrial Management Pool Officers who were opting for permanent absorption in Public Sector Undertakings, an option was given to companymute the full amount of their original pension.
240 per mensem payable from 1st September, 1971.In case of petitioner No.
It has thus been companytended that for the purposes of grant of the full benefit of relief or ad hoc relief the Rules do number make any distinction between an officer who has sought companymutation of his original pension and one who has number sought any such companymutation.
Asstt.
Though, an officer who companymutes one third of his pension gets relief and ad hoc relief on the basis of original amount of his pension but whereas an officer companymutes whole of his original pension is deprived of the entire amount of the relief or ad hoc relief.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.11757 11758 of 1984.
1068/1987 under Art.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
F. 22 8 EV A /75 dated 13.2.1976 inter alia, provided that where an officer on his retirement companymutes a portion of his pension he is eligible for relief and ad hoc reliefs in pension on the full amount of original pension as admissible to him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. The above writ petitions and appeal are disposed of by one single order as identical question of law are involved in these cases.
The petitioner No.
The Pay Commission, in order to secure Government pensioners against the companytinuing erosion in the value of the rupees and to recommend appropriate measures for protecting the pension of Government servants from such erosion on account of the possible increase in the case of living in future and after having companysidered the matter, recommended that irrespective of the amount of pension drawn by them, pensioners should be given relief at the rate of 5 of their pension subject to a minimum of Rs.5 per mensem and a maximum of Rs.25 per mensem.
2 companymuted their original pensions for a lumpsum of Rs.35,568 and Rs.43,601 on 30.10.1972 and 17.8.1972 respectively.
However, this Court in D.S. Nakara Others v. Union of India, 1983 2 SCR 165 held that all Central Government pensioners governed by the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 were entitled to pension w.e.f.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
1 the original pension was determined at Rs.
Shri Des Raj Bhatnagar, Petitioner DES No.
On absorption in the Food Corporation of India, the petitioners were required to exercise either of the following two options Receiving the pro rata monthly pension and death cum retirement gratuity as admissible under the rules and Receiving the pro rata gratuity and a lumpsum amount in lieu of pension worked out with reference to companymutation table obtaining on the date from which the pension was to be admissible and under the option order.
The petitioners were sanctioned original pensions in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972.
The petitioner No.
The relief for the first time, at these rates was to be paid when the 12th monthly average of this index reached 216.
1124 of 1985.
F. 19 37 EV/79 dated 25.5 1979, in respect of the approved pensionable service rendered by them in the Central Government as admissible to other pensioners who retired from Government service between 17.4.1950 to 31.3.1979.
C. Mahajan, Ms. A Subhashini and R.B. Mishra for the Respondent.
1 and Shri Ved Pal Seth, Petitioner No.2 were employees of the Central Government.
P. Rao, K. Jagan Mohan Rao and Raju Ramachandran for the Petitioners.
Petitioner No.
The said Memorandum was made applicable only to those Government servants who retired from service on or after 31.3.1979.
This Court had granted special leave on 25.3.1985 and had given a direction to hear the appeal alongwith the writ petition Nos.
The said recommendation made by the Pay Commission was duly accepted by the Central Government.
The petitioner No.
Apart from the above the petitioners have submitted that they are also entitled to the benefit of Liberalised Pension Formula of 1979,which was introduced vide the Finance Ministrys Office Memorandum No.
1 after serving in various capacities in the Department of food of the Central Government from 24.10.1941 to 31.8.1971 29 years and 10 months was permanently absorbed in Food Corporation of India as Assistant on 1st September, 1971 and retired from the Government service.
1976 works out to Rs.
The appellant then filed a S.L.P. against the said order.
The petitioners were persons who had, at the time of retirement from Government service and entering into public sector had taken the advantage of companymuting the entire pension.
The petitioners have thus companytended that aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 13.2.1976 is vitiated by an inherent discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
