Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Verma S/O Late Roop Narain ... vs Mohd.Rizvan Samiksha Adhikari ... on 19 December, 2012
Bench: Shri Narayan Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7336 of 2008
Petitioner :- Rakesh Verma S/O Late Roop Narain Verma
Respondent :- Mohd.Rizvan Samiksha Adhikari Establishment High Court,Luckn
Petitioner Counsel :- Saamiksha Verma
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Heard Ms Saamiksha Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Office Memorandum dated 19th September, 2008( Annexure No. 5) whereby petitioner's application for payment of full pensionary benefits in terms of order dated 21.11.2006 has been rejected. The operative portion of the Office Order dated 22.11.2006, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired speaks as under;
" As soon as retirement becomes final the suspension period of Sri Rakesh Verma, Review Officer( Under Suspension) High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow shall be treated as on duty with all consequences, but not before."
Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes on the wordings, intention and motive of the order from which according to him, it transpires that during the period of suspension, the petitioner has been treated on duty till the date of compulsory retirement with all consequences. It is stated that accordingly the petitioner is entitled for all service benefits as he was in service till the date of retirement.
Upon perusal of the record I find that the petitioner was awarded punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect for his misconduct by means of order dated 10 th August, 2001. The petitioner does not raise question on the said punishment at this stage but submits that after withholding said two increments, the petitioner should be permitted to get the pensionary benefits on the basis of basic pay scale applicable on the date of retirement after counting the whole services of the period of suspension.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that after withholding the said two increments, his basic pay was fixed at Rs.6725/- as was applicable on 1.9.1997, i.e, the date of suspension and accordingly he has been extended the benefit of service. However, the period of suspension has been calculated in the length of his service to extend the pensionary benefits. He drew the attention of this Court towards Article 486 Rule 1(a) of Civil Services Regulations which is reproduced herein under ;
" Rules 1- If during the last three years of his service, an officer has been absent from duty on leave with allowance, or having been suspended, has been reinstated without forfeiture of service, his emoluments, for the purpose of ascertaining the average, should be taken at what they would have been had he not been absent from the duty or suspended: Provided always(a) that his pension must not be increased on account of increase in pay not actually drawn and ( b) that an officer will not during leave be allowed to count as emoluments the sub- protem allowances which he could have been entitled to so count under Article 486 (h) had he remained on duty, if another officer has been appointed sub portem to the same appointment during the period of such leave. But if his absence on department or recess leave is reckoned as service under Article 409, only the allowances, if any, actually received during such leave should be taken into account."
In the light of the aforesaid provisions, it is stated by learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner's pension cannot be increased on account of increased in pay not actually drawn and he will not be allowed to count as emoluments the sub protem allowances which he could have been entitled to so count under Article 486(h) had he remained on duty.
However, in the case at hand, I find that the situation is different one as it is not the case in which the order of punishment has been quashed ordinarily rather during the course of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has been retired compulsorily treating him as on duty during the period of suspension with all consequences.
The word " consequences" has been defined in the New Laxicon Websters's Dictionary as under';
Consequences:- That which follows something and arises from it, " a logical inference", it follows as a consequence that..... importance, a matter of consequence in consequence of as as a result of to take the consequences to put up with a penalty, punishment or suffering brought about by one's own action.
Thus, it defines that the loss caused to the petitioner due to his own action shall be restored to the petitioner, meaning thereby that had the petitioner been in service during this period, he would have discharged the duties and received salary. Moreover, the result of compulsory retirement is that till the date of retirement the petitioner was in service. Therefore, his pensionary benefits cannot be counted on the basis of his basic pay scale as on the date of suspension or on the basis of its increased occurred before the date of retirement.
Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner has to be extended his pensonary benefit on the basis of the pay scale, as was applicable on the date of his retirement and accordingly direction is issued to the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2012
Tripathi
