AP Revised Pension Rules- High Court Holds Retired Employee To Be Entitled To Difference Of Subsistence Allowance Based On Revised Pay
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has explained that a retired employee is entitled to the difference in subsistence allowance which ought to have been paid considering the revision of the pay scale in the year 1993.
The Court was deciding a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in imposing punishment vide proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequentially to set aside the said proceedings and to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner till the date of superannuation as if he was in service and pay terminal benefits and pension as per the Revised Pay Scales of 1993.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi held, “… the petitioner would be entitled to receive the pension as per the pay so fixed, under the revised pay scale, and from that amount making the 20% cut in terms of the order G.O.Rt.No.1425, dated 08.10.1999. The petitioner would be entitled for the difference of the subsistence allowance, which ought to have been paid considering the revision of the pay scale in the year 1993 and the actual amount of subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner. He would be entitled for the arrears of the amount towards pension on such calculation and determination.”
The Bench said that the order of the removal of the petitioner having been set aside vide an order, there would be no severance of the relationship between the employer and the employee.
Advocate G. Padmavathi Srinivas represented the petitioner while Advocate S. Nageswara Reddy represented the respondents.
In this case, the contention of the petitioner was that he joined as District Munsif Magistrate in the State Judicial Services on February 4, 1980 and later he was promoted as Subordinate Judge. He was subsequently suspended from the service by the High Court vide proceedings issued by the Registrar (respondent) in 1991 and after due enquiry, he was removed from the service vide proceedings in 1993. The petitioner filed a writ petition and during the pendency of the adjudication, he attained the age of superannuation on December 31, 1994. The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court in 1996 holding that, it is for the High Court to consider and decide affect thereof in making any further recommendation to the Governor. Further contention of the petitioner was that, the respondent addressed a letter to the State Government recommending action under Rule-9 with Rule-8 of A.P Revised Pension Rules 1980 and the State issued memo calling for explanation of the petitioner.
The petitioner submitted explanation but the State imposed punishment of 20% cut in pension for life under Rule-9 and the respondent, thereafter, addressed a letter to District and Sessions Judge to inform the petitioner to submit pension papers. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted pension papers while the matter stood thus, the respondent issued proceedings stating that as per Rule 54-A(2) of the Fundamental Rules, the High Court intends to regularise the period of absence of petitioner from duty i.e., from the date of removal, till the date of superannuation of the petitioner. The respondent later imposed further punishment vide proceedings and limited the pay and allowances payable to the petitioner during the above period i.e., from the date of removal from service till attained the age of superannuation of 58 years to 75% only. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the above order of the respondent was illegal, arbitrary, and unjust.
The High Court in the above regard observed, “The writ petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation. Consequently the petitioner cannot be denied and deprived of the benefits of the revised pay scales of the year 1993 and that benefit would be available to the petitioner also. The punishment of 20% cut in pension for life is to be given effect to, determining the petitioners’ pay in the revised pay scales under the pay revision in the year 1993, and from time to time till the petitioners’ attaining the age of superannuation.”
The Court further said that though the period w.e.f. 1993 to 1994, has been treated as the period ‘not on duty’, but the necessary consequences would follow consequent upon setting aside the order of removal and for that period, the petitioner may not be entitled for full salary but for the subsistence allowance only to the extent of 75%, but that percentage of the subsistence allowance has to be calculated, as per the fixation of the petitioners’ salary, pursuant to the pay revision in the year 1993.
“We direct the respondents 1 and 2 to fix the pay of the petitioner by fixing his pay as per the revised pay scale, 1993, till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e., on 31.12.1994 and accordingly, the difference of subsistence allowance be paid to him. His pension shall also be determined accordingly and after making cut of 20% for life pursuant to the order dated 08.10.2019, the arrears of the pension, as also the regular pension be paid accordingly”, ordered the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed that the order be complied within two months.
Cause Title- Ch. Harinath v. The Registrar (Vigilance) & Ors.
