Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
92V.S. MURTHY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/05/1992
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 1746 1992 SCR (3) 92
1992 SCC Supl. (3) 115 JT 1992 (4) 355
1992 SCALE (1)1174
ACT:
Indian Railway Establishment Code:
Rules 2003 FR 9(8) and 2003 FR 9(9)- Railway employee
on deputation with a Public Sector Undertaking-‘Deputation-
Whether foreign service-Whether pay received in the Public
Sector Undertaking was from the general revenue of the State.
Rules 2544-A (CSR 486-A), 2544-B (CSR 486-B) and 2544-C
(CSR 486-C)(-) Railway employee deputed to a Public Sector
Undertaking -Permanently absorbed subsequently-‘Deputation
(duty) allowance’ drawn during deputation- Whether to be
included in emoluments for purpose of calculation of
pension on permanent absorption. ‘ Deputation allowance’-
When can be deemed to be special pay.
Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950:
Paras 501 (4) and 506-Provisions meant for guidance of
Railway staff-Cannot override statutory rules contained in
Indian Railway Establishment Code.
HEADNOTE:
The Appellant was initially appointed in the Railways.
Subsequently, he proceeded on deputation to a Public Sector
Undertaking, and was permanently absorbed there. While on
deputation, he was receiving his pay as admissible from time
to time in the parent department, plus deputation (duty)
allowance. On absorption, the appellant claimed his
pensionary benefits from the Railways, and on his request,
100% commutation of pension was allowed. However, the
calculation of pension was made without taking into account
the deputation (duty) allowance which he was drawing while
on deputation.
Having failed to persuade the authorities, through
various representations, to include the deputation (duty)
allowance for the purpose of calculation of his pension, the
appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.
93
The claim was contested by the respondents on the ground
that since the service rendered by him on deputation to the
Public Sector Undertaking was ‘foreign service’ the
deputation (duty) allowance received by him could not be
included in the expression "emoluments" for the purpose of
calculation of pension.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
The Tribunal held that deputation (duty) allowance, in
case of deputation to bodies owned wholly or substantially
controlled by the Government, would reckon for pension in
terms of the provisions made in Rules 2544-A and 2544-B (CSR
486-A and 486-B) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code,
subject, however, to the fulfillment of the conditions laid
down therein, notwithstanding the provisions of MRP Rules,
but the benefit of counting the deputation (duty) allowance
received by the appellant for calculation of his pension was
not available to him, since he did not fulfill the condition
of length of service during which he should have drawn the
special pay as envisaged by Rules 2544-A (CSR 486-A) and
2544-B (CSR 486-B) of Indian Railway Establishment Code.
In the appeal before this Court, the appellant
contended that the deputation (duty) allowance was required
to be included for calculation of pension since it was in
the nature of "special pay", which under the Indian Railway
Establishment Code read with F.R. had to be taken into
account for calculation of pension, and that he could not be
treated to be on ‘foreign service’ while serving with the
Public Sector Undertaking, since the Undertaking in question
was a Government of India Undertaking and was under the
control of the Central Government and, its revenues would be
included in the general revenues of the State.
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that
though the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the
appellant’s claim was correct and required no interference,
the reasoning of the Tribunal which had failed to take note
of Rules 2003 (FR.9) and 2544-C (CSR 486-C) was fallacious.
Dismissing the appeal, by Special leave, this Court,
HELD : 1. The allowance received by the appellant as
deputation (duty) allowance from the Public Sector
Undertaking was rightly excluded from being taken into
account for reckoning as "emoluments" for the purpose of
calculation of pension of the appellant by the railways.
The order of the Tribunal does not require any interference
though for reasons
94
different than the one given by the Tribunal. [105 A]
2.1 The provision of Manual of Railway Pension Rules
are meant for the guidance of the staff and by themselves do
not have any statutory force. However, the MRP rules
supplement the statutory rules and can be harmoniously read
with the statutory provisions contained in the Indian
Railway Establishment Code. [99 D]
2.2 The guidelines contained in Paras 501 (4)(1) and
506 of MRP Rules provide that if a railway servant has been
on foreign service immediately before quitting the railway
service, then his emoluments should be taken at what they
would have been had he not been on foreign service and
deputation (duty) allowance drawn on foreign service was not
to be taken into account for determining his emoluments
for calculation of pensionary benefits. [100 G-H]
2.3 According to Note (1) to CSR 486-C Rule (2544-C) if
a railway servant immediately before his retirement or
death etc. has been absent from duty or on leave with
allowances (including leave preparatory to retirement) or on
foreign service or having been suspended but reinstated
without forfeiture of qualifying service, his ‘emoluments’
should be taken at what they would have been had he not been
on such leave or foreign service or suspension as the case
may be for commutation of his pensionary benefits. [102 A]
2.4 The provisions of Rule 2544-C (CSR 486-C) read with
Note (1) thereto, therefore, give the statutory backing to
the guidelines contained in paras 501 (4)(1) and 506 of MRP
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
Rules and both can be harmoniously read together. The MRP
Rules only provide what is statutorily provided in CSR 486-C
of Indian Railway Establishment Code. Thus, both under the
CSR 486-C and the MRP Rules, deputation (duty) allowance
received by an employee while on foreign service has not to
be reckoned as "emoluments" for calculating pensionary
benefits. [102-C]
3.1 Rule 2544-A (CSR 486-A) provides that in respect of
officers retiring from service on or after the 1st November,
1959, the term "emoluments" means the emoluments which the
officer was receiving immediately before his retirement and
includes "special pay" attached to a post other than a
tenure post, when the "special pay" has been sanctioned
permanently and the post is held in a substantive capacity.
The deputation (duty)
95
allowance is deemed to be "special pay" and subject to any
exception would form the emoluments. For the purpose of
reckoning "special pay" as emoluments for pension, Rule
2544-B (CSR 486-B) provides that if an officer holding a
permanent post in a substantive capacity is confirmed in
such higher permanent post any time during the last three
years of his service after having officiated in that post
continuously for three years or more, his emoluments for
pension in respect of the higher post in any period beyond
three years of continuous service in that post shall be
determined under Rule 2544-A (CSR 486-A) as if he held in
substantive capacity a permanent post on a time-scale
identical with that of higher post. [103 G-H, 104 A-B]
3.2 In the instant case, the appellant was not drawing
"special pay" as envisaged by CSR 486-A and 486-B but
"deputation duty allowance" while on ‘foreign service’ and
that ‘special pay’ while on foreign service was required
to be excluded for purposes of calculation of pension. The
deputation (duty) allowance is not to be reckoned as
"emoluments" for calculating pension where the deputation
(duty) allowance has been received by the railway servant
while on deputation to foreign service as in such cases, the
deputaion (duty) allowance is not attached to the post but
is personal to the incumbent on foreign service. [104 C-D]
3.3 The Tribunal relied upon CSR 486-A and 486-B but
over-looked the provisions of CSR 486-C, which are in the
nature of an exception and exclude the deputation (duty)
allowance to be reckoned as emoluments for calculating
pension, where the same have been received by the railway
servant while on deputation to foreign service. [104 E]
3.4 The Tribunal was, therefore, not correct in
holding that the ‘special pay’ of the appellant was
required to be taken into account for calculating his
pension subject to his fulfilling the conditions laid down
in Rule 2544-B (CSR 486-B). [103 F-G]
4.4 A plain reading of the definitions of ‘foreign
service’ and ‘general revenues’ under Rules 2003 (FR9)(8)
and 2003 (FR9)(9) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code
shows that "foreign service" means service in which a
railway servant receives his pay and allowances, while on
deputation, from any source other than from a company
working as State Railway or from general revenue of the
State and the expression ‘general revenue’ means the
revenues of the President and includes the revenues of a
State
96
and the Railway Fund, if established. [102 G]
4.2 In the instant case, the appellant was not
reviving his pay while on deputation with the Public Sector
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
Undertaking from the general revenue of the State or from
any company working as State Railway. Even if the Public
Sector Undertaking in question is a Government of India
enterprise, it can only be treated to be a Government of
India undertaking but its revenues cannot be said to
constitute the general revenue of the State within the
meaning of Rule 2003 (FR.9). Therefore, the pay and
allowances received by the appellant while on deputaion to
the Public Sector Undertaking were not being drawn from the
general revenue of the State. His service with the Public
Sector Undertaking was unmistakably foreign service and in
the matter of calculation of his emoluments for computation
of terminal benefits on his quitting the railway service,
the provisions related to foreign service were to be
applied to his case.
[103 A-C]
5. There is sound logic behind the exclusion of
deputation (duty) allowance received by a railway servant
while on foreign service from being included in the
emoluments to calculate pension. The deputation of a
Railway servant to foreign service is a fortuitous
assignment and since, there is no settled method of
selection of the railway servant for being sent on
deputation to foreign service, the life long benefit of
having the deputation duty allowance included for
calculation of pension may result in hardship and injustice
to those railway servants who were not so sent on deputation
even though senior or more qualified than the person sent on
deputation. It is for this reason that while the
deputationists may receive the deputation (duty) allowance
for the services rendered on foreign service during the
period they remain on deputation, that deputation (duty)
allowance has been excluded from being taken into account
for purpose of calculation of pension. [104 F-H]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 127 of
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.1990 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 542
of 1987.
Appellant-in person.
Dr. Anand Prakash, Ms. Sarla Chandra, B. Krishna Prasad
(NP) and
97
V.K. Verma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. A.S. ANAND, J. The short and only question
requiring consideration of this Court in this appeal, by
Special Leave, from the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, made in OA No. 542/87
on 18th of April, 1990 is "whether for calculating the
pension, the amount paid by way of deputation (duty)
allowance by Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited, Rasayani
to the appellant, while on deputation from the Railways, is
to be included ?" The necessary and relevant facts are as
follows :
2. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk, Grade-II, in
the Office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts
officer, Central Railways, Bombay V.T., on 25.1.1950. In
1953, he was promoted as Stock Verifier in the pay-scale of
Rs. 80-220. While the appellant was so working, in 1979, he
proceeded on deputation to join as a Vigilance Inspector in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
the Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited [hereinafter
referred to as ‘HOCL’] initially for a period of one year,
which period was extended from time to time till he was
permanently absorbed in HOCL on 8.12.1982. At the time of
proceeding on deputation, the pay-scale of the appellant in
the Central Railways was Rs.490-30-640-35-815-40- 1055. On
deputation, the pay of the appellant was regulated in terms
of the FA and CAO’s Office Memorandum, dated 12.12.1979, and
the appellant received his pay, as admissible from time to
time, plus the deputation (duty) allowance. The appellant
was permanently absorbed in the HOCL with effect from
8.12.1982 following his resignation from the Central
Railways. The appellant claimed his pensionary benefits
from the Central Railways.
3. In accordance with the relevant orders of the
Government of India, a pensionary employee, on permanent
absorption in a public sector undertaking, is entitled to
the grant of pension on the basis of qualifying years of
service etc. The Government of India, however, makes a
departure in such cases, from the normal rule of
commutation of pension to the extent of 1/3rd of the
pension to full (100%) commutation of pension. In the case
of appellant, on his request, 100% commutation of pension
was allowed by the Government of India. The calculation of
pension was, however, made without taking into account the
amount of deputation (duty) allowance of Rs. 150 per month,
which the appellant was drawing, while on deputation
98
from the Central Railways, to the HOCL. It is pertinent to
notice here that the appellant had opted for contributory
provident fund and had received the benefit in respect
thereof form the HOCL for the period for which he was on
deputation. Having failed to persuade the authorities,
through various representations, to include the deputation
(duty) allowance for the purpose of calculation of his
pension, the appellant approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.
4. The claim of the appellant was contested by the
respondents before the Tribunal on various grounds. It was
urged that the service rendered by the appellant on
deputation to the HOCL was foreign service and, therefore,
the deputation (duty) allowance received by him could not be
included in the expression "emoluments" for the purpose of
calculation of pension. Reliance was placed by the
respondents on para 506(i) and 501 (4)(1) of the Manual of
Railway Pension Rules, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as MRP
Rules), and Rules 2544 and B(CSRs 486 A and 486 B) of Indian
Railway Establishment Code, Vol.II (hereinafter referred to
as IRE Code). The Tribunal found that the provisions of
Manual of Railway Pension Rules were meant only for the
guidance of the railway staff and those provisions could
not over-ride the statutory rules contained in the IRE Code.
The Tribunal then referred to various provisions of the IRE
Code and held that deputation (duty) allowance, in case of
deputation to bodies owned wholly or substantially
controlled by the Government, would reckon for pension in
terms of the provisions made in Rules 2544 -A and 2544-B
[CSRs 486-A and 486-B] of the IRE Code, subject, however, to
the fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein,
notwithstanding the provisions of MRP Rules. The Tribunal,
however, found that the benefit of counting the deputation
(duty) allowance received by the appellant from HOCL for
calculation of his pension was not available to the
appellant as he did not fulfill the condition of length of
service during which he should have drawn the special pay as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
envisaged by Rules 2544-A [CSR 486 -A]and 2544-B [CSR 486-B]
of IRE Code.
5. The appellant, appearing in person, has taken us
through the provisions of the MRP Rules as well as the IRE
Code. He canvassed that the Tribunal fell in error in
holding that the appellant had not satisfied the conditions
necessary for having the deputation allowance included for
calculation of his pension and asserted that the deputation
(duty) allowance was required to be included for calculation
of pension, since it
99
was in the nature of "special pay" and ‘special pay’ under
the IRE Code read with F.R. had to be taken into account for
calculation of pension.
Dr. Anand Prakash, learned Senior Advocate, appearing
for the respondent, in his reply submitted that since the
Tribunal had failed to take note of certain relevant
provisions of IRE Code, its reasoning was fallacious, though
the impugned order was correct and required no interference.
He argued that the appellant was receiving his pay while on
deputation to HOCL from a source other than from the general
revenue of the State, which criterion under Rule No.2003
(F.R.9) of the IRE Code rendered the service of the
appellant in HOCL as foreign service and the deputation
(duty) allowance received by an employee of the railways
while on foreign service could not be included for the
purposes of calculation of the emoluments in view of para
2544 [CSR 486-C] of the IRE Code. Learned counsel for the
respondent, therefore, argued that the order of the Tribunal
did not call for any interference.
We have given our thoughtful considerations to the
submissions made at the bar. We agree with the Tribunal
that the provisions of Manual of Railway Pension Rules are
meant for the guidance of the staff and by themselves do not
have any statutory force. In our opinion, however, the MRP
rules supplement the statutory rules and for what follows,
can be harmoniously read with the statutory provisions
contained in the IRE Code.
Paras 501(4)(1) and 506 of MRP Rules read as follows :
501(4)(1) :
(1) If immediately before quitting the service a
Railway servant has been absent from duty on leave
with allowances (including leave preparatory to
retirement) or on foreign service or having been
suspended but reinstated without forfeiture of
qualifying service his emoluments should be taken
at what they would have been had he not been on
such leave or foreign service or suspension."
506 :
"The following do not count as ‘emoluments’ for
pensionary benefits and will not be taken into
account for reckoning as
100
‘emoluments’ :-
(i) Local Allowances such as bad climate allowance,
when sanctioned as compensatory allowance and
deputation (Local) allowance or deputation (duty)
allowance drawn on deputation to non-Government
departments or bodies;
(ii) Messing allowance;
(iii) House Rent allowance, or estimated value of
rent-free quarters;
(iv) Travelling Allowance;
(v) Conveyance allowance;
(vi) City Compensatory allowance;
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
(vii) Uniform allowance;
(viii) Washing allowance;
(ix) Any other part of Railway servant’s emoluments
which is specially intended to provide for expenses
incidental to his duty;
(x) Bonus;
(xi) Honorarium;
(xii) Fees and
(xiii) Overtime."
[Emphasis Supplied]
The guidelines contained in Paras (4)(1) and 506 of MRP
Rules thus provide that if a railway servant has been on
foreign service immediately before quitting the railway
service, then his emoluments should be taken at what they
would have been had he not been on foreign service and
deputation (duty) allowance drawn on foreign service was not
to be taken into account for determining his emoluments for
calculation of pensionary benefits.
101
The relevant provision of the IRE Code dealing with
this aspect is Rule 2544-C [CSR 486-C]. That rule reads
thus:
"Rule 2544-C [CSR 486-C]: In respect of railway
servants quitting service on or after the 15th
June, 1968, "emoluments" shall mean the "pay" as
defined in Rule 2003 (21), which the railway
servant was receiving immediately before quitting
service. Provided that the benefit of higher
officiating pay for (ordinary) Gratuity/Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity will be given only if such pay
was/would have been drawn continuously for a period
of not less than 22 days. "Average emoluments"
shall mean the average of the emoluments as defined
above calculated upon the last three years of
service.
In the case of running staff emoluments for
(ordinary) Gratuity (1) Death-cum-retirement
Gratuity will also include the monthly average of
running allowance drawn during the 365 days of
running duty immediately preceding the date of
quitting service limited to 75 per cent of the
emoluments as defined above. For the purpose of
calculation of average emoluments the actual amount
of the running allowance drawn during the month
limited to a maximum of 75 per cent of other
emoluments as defined above shall also be taken
into account.
NOTE :-(1) If a railway servant, immediately
before his retirement or death, etc. has been
absent from duty or on leave with allowances
(including leave preparatory to retirement) or on
foreign service or having been suspended but
reinstated without forfeiture of qualifying
service, his emoluments should be taken at what
they would have been had he not been on such leave
or foreign service or suspension:
Provided that emoluments shall not be increased
on account of increase in pay, not actually drawn
and that benefit of higher officiating or temporary
pay is given only if it is certified that he would
have continued to hold the higher officiating or
temporary appointment but for his proceeding on
leave.
(2) Pay drawn in tenure appointments will count
for persons governed by the Railway Pension Rules,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
1950."
[Emphasis supplied)
102
It would be seen from Note (1) to CSR 486-C(supra)
that if a railway servant immediately before his retirement
or death etc. has been absent from duty or on leave with
allowances [including leave preparatory to retirement] or on
foreign service or having been suspended but reinstated
without forfeiture of qualifying service,his ‘emoluments’
should be taken at what they would have been had he not been
on such leave or foreign service or suspension as the case
may be for commutation of his pensionary benefits. The
provision of Rule 2544-C [CSR 486-C] read with Note(1)
thereto, therefore, give the statutory backing to the
guidelines contained in para 501(4)(1) and 506 of MRP Rules
(supra) and both can be harmoniously read together. The MRP
Rules only provide what is statutorily provided in CSR 486-C
of IRE Code. Thus, both under the CSR 486-C [supra] and the
MRP Rules, deputation (duty) allowance received by an
employee while on foreign service has not to be reckoned as
"emoluments" for calculating pensionary benefit.
We are unable to accept the plea of the appellant that
he could not be treated to be on foreign service while
serving with the HOCL on the ground that HOCL is a
Government of India Undertaking and is under the control of
the Central Government and therefore its revenues would be
general revenues of the State.
Rules 2003 (F.R.9) (8) and 2003 (F.R.9) (9) of the IRE
Code define foreign service and general revenues and lay
down as follows :
"Rule 2003 (F.R.9) (8) : Foreign Service means
service in which a railway servant receives his
substantive pay with the sanction of Government (a)
from any source other than the general revenues or
(b) from a company working as State Railway."
"Rule 2003 (F.R.9) (9) : General Revenues mean the
revenues of the President and includes the revenues
of a State and the Railway Fund (when
established)."
A plain reading of the above definition shows that "
foreign service" means service in which a railway servant
receives his pay and allowances, while on deputation, from
any source other than from a company working as State
Railway or from general revenue of the State and the
expression ‘general revenue’ means the revenues of the
President and includes the revenues of a State and Railway
Fund, if established.
103
6. The appellant was not receiving his pay while on
deputation with the HOCL from the general revenue of the
State or from any company working as State Railway. Even
if HOCL is a Government of India enterprise, it can only be
treated to be a Government of India undertaking but its
revenues cannot be said to constituted the general revenue
of the State within the meaning of Rule 2003 (F.R.9)(supra)
and, therefore, it is erroneous for the appellant to contend
that the pay and allowances received by him while on
deputation to HOCL were being drawn from the general revenue
of the State. His service with HOCL was, unmistakably
foreign service and in the matter of calculation of his
emoluments for computation of terminal benefits on his
quitting the railway service, the provisions relatable to
foreign service were to be applied to his case.
7. The Tribunal relied on Paragraph 2003 (F.R.9) 89 (A)
IRE Code, which defines ‘pay’ as including ‘special pay’ and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
‘personal pay’ and after referring to Rule 2544-A [CSR 486-
A] which provides:
"2544-A [CSR 486-A]: Save as otherwise provided in
Rule 2544-B (CSR 486-B). In respect of officers
retiring from service on or after the 1st November,
1959, the term "emoluments" means the emoluments
which the officer was receiving immediately before
his retirement and includes:
(a) ........
(b) ........
(c) Special pay attached to a post other than a
tenure post, when the special pay has been
sanctioned permanently and the post is held in a
substantive capacity."
held that the ’special pay’ of the appellant was
required to be taken into account for calculating his
pension subject to his fulfilling the conditions laid down
in Rule 2544 B (CSR 486 B). This approach of the tribunal,
in the facts of this case, was erroneous.
The aforesaid rule provides that in respect of officers
retiring from service on or after the 1st November, 1959,
the term "emoluments" means the emoluments which the officer
was receiving immediately before his retirement and includes
"special pay" attached to a post other than a tenure post,
when the "special pay" has been sanctioned permanently and
the post
104
is held in a substantive capacity. The deputation (duty)
allowance, is deemed to be "special pay" and subject to any
exception would from the emoluments. the conditions for
reckoning "special pay" as emoluments for pension are
contained in Rule 2544-B [CSR 486-B] which inter alia
provides that if an officer holding a permanent post in a
substantive capacity is confirmed in such higher permanent
post any time during the last three years of his service
after having officiated in that post continuously for three
years or more, his emoluments for pension in respect of the
higher post in any period beyond three years of continuous
service in that post shall be determined under Rule 2544-A
[CSR 486-A] as if held in substantive capacity a permanent
post on a time-scale identical with that of higher post. The
appellant was, in the instant case, not drawing "special
pay" as envisaged by CSR 486-A and 486-B but "deputation
duty allowance" while on ’foreign service’ and that "special
pay" while on ’foreign service’ was required to be excluded
for purposes of calculation of pension. The deputation
(duty) allowance is not to be reckoned as " emoluments" for
calculating pension where the deputation (duty) allowance
has been received by the railway servant while on deputation
to foreign service as in such cases the deputation (duty)
allowance is not attached to the post but is personal to the
incumbent on foreign service. The Tribunal relied upon CSR
486-A and 486-B but over-looked the provisions of CSR 486-C,
which are in the nature of an exception and exclude the
deputation (duty) allowance to be reckoned as emoluments for
calculating pension, where the same have been received by
the railway servant while on deputation to foreign service.
There appears to be sound logic behind the exclusion of
deputation (duty) allowance received by a railway servant
while on foreign service from being included in the
emoluments to calculate pension. The deputation of a
railway servant to foreign service is a fortuitous
assignment and since, there is no settled method of
selection of the railway servant for being sent on
deputation to foreign service, the life long benefit of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
having the deputation duty allowance included for
calculation of pension may result in hardship and injustice
to those railway servants who were not so sent on deputation
even though senior or more qualified than the person sent on
deputation. It is for this reason that while the
deputationist may receive the deputation (duty) allowance
for the services rendered on foreign service during the
period they remain on deputation that deputation (duty)
allowance has been excluded from being taken into account
for purpose of calculation of pension.
105
8. Thus, for what we have said above, the allowance
received by the appellant as deputation (duty) allowance
from HOCL was rightly excluded from being taken into account
for reckoning as "emoluments" for the purpose of calculation
of pension of the appellant by the railways. The impugned
order of the Tribunal does not, therefore, require any
interference and the same is upheld though for reasons
different than the one given by the Tribunal.
9. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed but we make
no order as to costs.
Before parting with the judgment, we would like to
point out that as an interim measure we had directed, vide
order dated 10.1.1991, that the appellant’s pension shall be
computed by taking into account the deputation duty
allowance as a part of emoluments and that in the event the
contention of the appellant, not being accepted by the
Court, appropriate adjustment shall be made. In case the
pension has been worked out in accordance with our interim
directions, the respondent shall be entitled and at liberty
to make proper adjustments from his pensionary benefits
hereafter; but the same should be done in such a manner that
its rigour is diluted and the adjustments are distributed
over a span of time
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.
106