At the time of their retirement, under Rule 33 of the Central Services Pension Rule which are applicable to the respondents, emolument for the purpose of calculation of pension were defined to mean pay as defined in Fundamental Rule 9 21 .
Each person when he is sent on deputation has an option either to opt fro the pay in the parent office plus a deputation allowance or to opt for the scale of pay in the deputation post.
After the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report, Government orders were issued in June 1986 revising the pay scales with effect from 1st of January, 1986.
It is an admitted position that the Government of India treated deputation allowance as special pay.
Emoluments, therefore, at the time of the retirement of the respondents included deputation allowance for the purpose of calculations of pension.
Fundmental rule 9 21 is as follows 9 21 a Pay means the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is intitled by reason of his position in a cadre and overseas pay, special ay and personal pay and any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the President.
THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mrs. Justice Sujata V.Manohar Honble Mr. Justice M.Jagannadha Rao N.Goswami, Sr.
Tahir Siddiqui, Advs.
The respondents, some time prior to their retirement, had been sent on deputation to the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat and they companytinued to be deputation till the date of their retirement.
J. The respondents in both these appeals retired as Audit Officers from the Office of the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, after more than 30 years of service.
Thereafter under an Officer Memorandum dated 14th of April, 1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, there was a revision in the provisions regulating, inter alia, pension.
Ms. Kanupriya Mittal, Adv for V.Subba Rao, Adv.
S.Balaganesan and Mohd.
with him for the appellants.
for the Respondents in C.A.No.885/94 J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered With C.A. No.8851/94 Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar.
Both the respondents had opted for retaining their pay in the parent office plus a deputation allowance.
The respondent in Civil Appeal No.3343 of 1990 V.Vishwanathan retired on 31.1.1987 while the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
8851 of 1994 M.S. Sabhesan retired on 31.5.1986.
