Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
2025 INSC 1403
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.22297 of 2024)
Mukut Das
…Appellant
Versus
The Assam Power Generation
Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
…Respondents
With
Civil Appeal No. 14560 of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.330 of 2025)
O R D E R
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The short controversy in the above appeals is as to
whether the appellants, who retired on 31.03.2016 are entitled
to the revision as brought in by the ‘Assam State Electricity
1
Board and its Successor Companies Revised Pay Rules, 2017’ .
Both the appellants were superannuated in March 2016, they
Signature Not Verified
having reached the age of superannuation, 60 years, before the
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.12.09
14:46:05 IST
Reason:
1
for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’
Page 1 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
last day in March 2016. By virtue of Fundamental Rule 56(a),
their date of retirement from service is extended to the
afternoon of the last day of the month in which the employee
attains the age of 60 years; thus, both the appellants retired on
31.12.2016.
3. The learned Single Judge before whom the Writ Petition
was filed, looking at the Rules of 2017 and FR 56(a) held that the
Rules of 2017 applies to an employee who was in service on
31.03.2016, thus entitling both the appellants to the pay revision
benefits. The Division Bench in Writ appeal reversed the
finding, against which the appellants have approached this
Court.
4. We heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants, Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel and
Mr. Kaushik Choudhury learned counsel for the Respondents.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
would contend that the Fundamental Rule specifically provided
for retirement to be extended to the last day of the month in
which an employee attains 60 years; in the present case to
31.03.2016 in which event, the appellants were in service as on
Page 2 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
31.03.2016. The Rules of 2017 specifically provided that the
revision applies to those in service as on 31.03.2016.
6.
It is vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel for
the respondents that the pay revision rules specifically enabled
only those who were appointed and continued on or after
01.04.2016 to the revised pay structure. It is also pointed out
that the revised pension shall not be applicable to the persons
who had retired on or before 31.03.2016; as is clear from the
rule permitting fitment benefits to pensioners.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents specifically referred to the decision of this Court
in K. J. George and Ors. v. Chief General Manager, Telecom,
2
BSNL & Anr. , and a decision of the Delhi High Court in Union
3
of India and Ors. v. G.C. Yadav , the Special Leave Petition
filed against which has been dismissed by an order dated
24.05.2024 in SLP (C) No.33558 of 2018.
8. We will first consider the decision placed before us in K.
2
J. George . The Fifth Central Pay Commission by Clause 3.1
provided that revised pension will apply to Government
2
(2008) 14 SCC 699
3
2018 SCC OnLine Del 12191
Page 3 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
servants who retired/died in harness on or after 01.01.1996.
The respondents therein who attained the age of
superannuation on 16.12.1995 and 03.12.1995 respectively, by
virtue of the provision of FR 56 were made to retire only with
effect from the afternoon of 31.12.1996. They claimed that they
are entitled to the revised pay which came into effect from
01.01.1996 which claim stood declined by this Court.
3
9. The High Court of Delhi in G.C. Yadav was concerned
with the Seventh Central Pay Commission implemented on
04.08.2016 in respect of pensioners, retiring on or after
01.01.2016; the date of effect. The respondents-employees
therein attained the age of retirement on 31.12.2015. Hence,
there is no applicability of FR 56 which provided extension of
retirement to the last day of the month only in cases where the
st
date of retirement is on a day prior to 31 day of the very same
3
month. In G.C. Yadav , the date of birth of the respondent was
01.01.1956 in which event he attained the age of retirement on
31.12.2015, on which date he superannuated. Since he retired
on 31.12.2015, that disabled him from claiming the benefit of
revision which was made effective from 01.01.2016. There is a
clear distinction herein, insofar as the date of retirement of the
Page 4 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
appellants was the date on which the revision was made
effective.
2
10.
True, in K. J. George , this Court held that even if the
benefit of FR 56(a) is conferred on an employee, legally he
retires on the date when he attains the age of 60 years and the
continuance after the last day of the month is only for the
purpose of pay and allowances. We are unable to agree with
the said finding, especially in the context of FR 56(a) not
providing any such rigour of continuance only for the purpose
of pay and allowance. FR 56(a) is extracted herein: -
“F.R. 56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this
rule, every Government servant shall retire from
service on the afternoon of the last day of the
month in which he attains the age of sixty years:
Provided that a Government servant whose date of
birth is the first of a month shall retire from service
on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding
month on attaining the age of sixty years.”
3
11. It is based on the proviso to the FR that G.C. Yadav
declined the revision since therein the date of birth fell on the
st
1 day of the month and hence the employee retired on the last
day of the preceding month.
Page 5 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
12. Normally, we would have referred the matter to a Larger
2
Bench since K. J. George is a decision of a Coordinate Bench.
But it is pertinent that the FR did not provide for a legal
retirement and a severance on the last day, for purposes of pay
and allowances alone. Moreover the decision failed to notice a
three Judge Bench decision, which we shall refer to, a little
later.
2 3
13. Both, K. J. George and G.C. Yadav are cases where the
respondent employees retired one day prior to the date of pay
revision coming into effect. Insofar as the findings in K. J.
2
George regarding the extension being only for the purpose of
pay and allowances, we are not referring the matter to a Larger
Bench since we are supported by a Three Judge Bench decision
4
in S. Benerjee v. Union of India and Others , wherein a Deputy
Registrar was allowed to retire from the Registry of this Court,
on 01.01.1986. The petitioner therein sought for the benefit of
the Fourth Central Pay Commission which provided for treating
the entire dearness allowance drawn by an employee up to
31.12.1985 as pay for pensionary benefits, in the case of
employees who retired during the period 01.01.1986 to
4
1989 Supp 2 SCC 486
Page 6 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
30.09.1986. This Court reckoned Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 providing for the date of
retirement of a Government employee. Reference was also
made to the proviso to Rule 5(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, which deemed the date of retirement to be a non-working
day in the case of a government servant who retires
prematurely/voluntarily. Despite the proviso deeming the date
of voluntary retirement to be not a working day, the three Judge
Bench allowed the benefit that accrued on that date to all
employees in service, to the appellant who retired voluntarily.
14. The proviso to Rule 5(2) is not applicable to the appellants
herein since they had retired on attaining the age of
superannuation, in the month of March 2016, extended to
31.03.2016 by virtue of FR 56(a). Rule 5(2) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules is squarely applicable which provides as follows: -
5(2) The day on which a Government servant retires
or is retired or is discharged or is allowed to resign
from service, as the case may be, shall be treated as
his last working day. The date of death shall also be
treated as a working day.
Hence the day on which the appellants retired they were in
service.
Page 7 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
15. In the present case, on the above principles we looked at
the Rules of 2017, which is the subject matter of controversy,
which is extracted hereunder: -
Application of the Revised Pay
st
(a) All employees who were in services on 31 March
st
2016 or who may have been appointed on or after 1
April 2016 shall draw pay in revised pay structure
(Pay Band with Grade Pay) applicable to the
posts/grades which they have been holding or to
which they may have been appointed as the case may
be.
Fitment benefit/revision of pensioner/family pensioners.
(a) The revised basic pension/family pension on
01.04.2016 of the pensioners/ family pensioners who
were drawing pension/ family pension on 31.03.2016
shall be fixed by multiplying the existing pension/ family
pension by a factor of 2.48 and the amount so computed
shall be rounded-of to the next multiple of Rs 10/-. The
basic pension for all purposes will be w.e.f. 01.04.2016.
(b) The revised basic pension in no case shall be lower
than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay
band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the
pre revised pay scale/pay band from which the
pensioner had retired. This is applicable to those
pensioners who retired on or before 31.03.2016 and after
completing 25/33 years of qualifying service as the case
may be.
16. Quite distinct from the Central Pay Commission
recommendations, referred to in the cited decisions, the Rules
of 2017 specifically provided for the benefit of pay revision to
all employees who are in service on 31.03.2016 and those who
have been appointed on or after 01.04.2016. The appellants by
Page 8 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
virtue of the FR 56(a), though attained the age of retirement
prior to 31.03.2016, having attained the age only in March 2016
will have their date of superannuation extended to 31.03.2016.
The FR does not provide for such extension to be merely for the
purpose of pay and allowances nor can there be a deemed
legal termination of employer-employee relationship be found
on the date of attaining the age of 60 years. The rule of
superannuation is clear and unambiguous that any person who
attained the age of superannuation in a month will retire only
on the last day of that month. Further by virtue of Rule 5(2) of
the CCS (Pension) Rules, on 31.03.2016 the appellants were in
service, and they are entitled to the pay revision brought in by
the Rules of 2017. Rule 5(2) of the CCS Pension Rules as
extracted hereinabove ensures that the last day of retirement,
in normal superannuation, as distinguished from a premature
or voluntary retirement, is a working day for which the
employee is entitled to salary.
17. The contentions based on Rule 32 of the Pay Revision
Rules of 2017 is also fallacious. Sub-rule 1 specifically provides
that the pension of any pensioner who retired prior to
01.04.2016 shall be revised w.e.f. 01.04.2016. Sub-rule 1(a)
Page 9 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
provides for computation of pension/family pension as on
31.03.2016 to those persons who were drawing the pension or
family pension as on 31.03.2016; which is not applicable to the
appellants since they were in service on 31.03.2016 and were
not drawing pension or family pension as on that date. Insofar
as sub-rule 1(b) is concerned, it only provides for a basic
pension not lower than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay
in the pay band and the grade pay, for those pensioners who
retired on or before 31.03.2016 and after completing 25/33
years of service. This is only an enabling, provision to ensure
a minimum pension to those who are not covered by the
revision, which cannot alter the date of effect of the pay revision
rules. It cannot be said that the appellants who were in service
on 31.03.2016 would not be entitled to the revised pay scales as
on 31.03.2016 by virtue of a provision enabling those who are
not entitled to the revision to a minimum basic pension. As we
noticed the Rules of 2017 are specific and those who are in
service on 31.03.2016 are to be granted the revision.
18. We set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court and restore that of the learned Single Judge. The
appellants shall be entitled to the pay revision as on 31.03.2016
Page 10 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
and their pay for the month of March 2016 shall be determined
in the revised scales and such revised pay shall be reckoned
for computing the pension payable. The arrears of pay and
pension shall be paid within a period of six months, and the
revised pension shall commence from February 2026. The
arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6 % for each passed
year, if the above directions are not complied with and in the
event of interest liability arising for non-payment of arrears
within six months, as directed hereinabove, the respondent
shall pay the interest and would be entitled to recover the same
from the officers who caused the delay in such payment of
arrears.
19. The appeals are allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….……….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi
December 04, 2025.
Page 11 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
2025 INSC 1403
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.22297 of 2024)
Mukut Das
…Appellant
Versus
The Assam Power Generation
Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
…Respondents
With
Civil Appeal No. 14560 of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.330 of 2025)
O R D E R
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The short controversy in the above appeals is as to
whether the appellants, who retired on 31.03.2016 are entitled
to the revision as brought in by the ‘Assam State Electricity
1
Board and its Successor Companies Revised Pay Rules, 2017’ .
Both the appellants were superannuated in March 2016, they
Signature Not Verified
having reached the age of superannuation, 60 years, before the
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.12.09
14:46:05 IST
Reason:
1
for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’
Page 1 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
last day in March 2016. By virtue of Fundamental Rule 56(a),
their date of retirement from service is extended to the
afternoon of the last day of the month in which the employee
attains the age of 60 years; thus, both the appellants retired on
31.12.2016.
3. The learned Single Judge before whom the Writ Petition
was filed, looking at the Rules of 2017 and FR 56(a) held that the
Rules of 2017 applies to an employee who was in service on
31.03.2016, thus entitling both the appellants to the pay revision
benefits. The Division Bench in Writ appeal reversed the
finding, against which the appellants have approached this
Court.
4. We heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants, Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel and
Mr. Kaushik Choudhury learned counsel for the Respondents.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
would contend that the Fundamental Rule specifically provided
for retirement to be extended to the last day of the month in
which an employee attains 60 years; in the present case to
31.03.2016 in which event, the appellants were in service as on
Page 2 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
31.03.2016. The Rules of 2017 specifically provided that the
revision applies to those in service as on 31.03.2016.
6.
It is vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel for
the respondents that the pay revision rules specifically enabled
only those who were appointed and continued on or after
01.04.2016 to the revised pay structure. It is also pointed out
that the revised pension shall not be applicable to the persons
who had retired on or before 31.03.2016; as is clear from the
rule permitting fitment benefits to pensioners.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents specifically referred to the decision of this Court
in K. J. George and Ors. v. Chief General Manager, Telecom,
2
BSNL & Anr. , and a decision of the Delhi High Court in Union
3
of India and Ors. v. G.C. Yadav , the Special Leave Petition
filed against which has been dismissed by an order dated
24.05.2024 in SLP (C) No.33558 of 2018.
8. We will first consider the decision placed before us in K.
2
J. George . The Fifth Central Pay Commission by Clause 3.1
provided that revised pension will apply to Government
2
(2008) 14 SCC 699
3
2018 SCC OnLine Del 12191
Page 3 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
servants who retired/died in harness on or after 01.01.1996.
The respondents therein who attained the age of
superannuation on 16.12.1995 and 03.12.1995 respectively, by
virtue of the provision of FR 56 were made to retire only with
effect from the afternoon of 31.12.1996. They claimed that they
are entitled to the revised pay which came into effect from
01.01.1996 which claim stood declined by this Court.
3
9. The High Court of Delhi in G.C. Yadav was concerned
with the Seventh Central Pay Commission implemented on
04.08.2016 in respect of pensioners, retiring on or after
01.01.2016; the date of effect. The respondents-employees
therein attained the age of retirement on 31.12.2015. Hence,
there is no applicability of FR 56 which provided extension of
retirement to the last day of the month only in cases where the
st
date of retirement is on a day prior to 31 day of the very same
3
month. In G.C. Yadav , the date of birth of the respondent was
01.01.1956 in which event he attained the age of retirement on
31.12.2015, on which date he superannuated. Since he retired
on 31.12.2015, that disabled him from claiming the benefit of
revision which was made effective from 01.01.2016. There is a
clear distinction herein, insofar as the date of retirement of the
Page 4 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
appellants was the date on which the revision was made
effective.
2
10.
True, in K. J. George , this Court held that even if the
benefit of FR 56(a) is conferred on an employee, legally he
retires on the date when he attains the age of 60 years and the
continuance after the last day of the month is only for the
purpose of pay and allowances. We are unable to agree with
the said finding, especially in the context of FR 56(a) not
providing any such rigour of continuance only for the purpose
of pay and allowance. FR 56(a) is extracted herein: -
“F.R. 56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this
rule, every Government servant shall retire from
service on the afternoon of the last day of the
month in which he attains the age of sixty years:
Provided that a Government servant whose date of
birth is the first of a month shall retire from service
on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding
month on attaining the age of sixty years.”
3
11. It is based on the proviso to the FR that G.C. Yadav
declined the revision since therein the date of birth fell on the
st
1 day of the month and hence the employee retired on the last
day of the preceding month.
Page 5 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
12. Normally, we would have referred the matter to a Larger
2
Bench since K. J. George is a decision of a Coordinate Bench.
But it is pertinent that the FR did not provide for a legal
retirement and a severance on the last day, for purposes of pay
and allowances alone. Moreover the decision failed to notice a
three Judge Bench decision, which we shall refer to, a little
later.
2 3
13. Both, K. J. George and G.C. Yadav are cases where the
respondent employees retired one day prior to the date of pay
revision coming into effect. Insofar as the findings in K. J.
2
George regarding the extension being only for the purpose of
pay and allowances, we are not referring the matter to a Larger
Bench since we are supported by a Three Judge Bench decision
4
in S. Benerjee v. Union of India and Others , wherein a Deputy
Registrar was allowed to retire from the Registry of this Court,
on 01.01.1986. The petitioner therein sought for the benefit of
the Fourth Central Pay Commission which provided for treating
the entire dearness allowance drawn by an employee up to
31.12.1985 as pay for pensionary benefits, in the case of
employees who retired during the period 01.01.1986 to
4
1989 Supp 2 SCC 486
Page 6 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
30.09.1986. This Court reckoned Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 providing for the date of
retirement of a Government employee. Reference was also
made to the proviso to Rule 5(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, which deemed the date of retirement to be a non-working
day in the case of a government servant who retires
prematurely/voluntarily. Despite the proviso deeming the date
of voluntary retirement to be not a working day, the three Judge
Bench allowed the benefit that accrued on that date to all
employees in service, to the appellant who retired voluntarily.
14. The proviso to Rule 5(2) is not applicable to the appellants
herein since they had retired on attaining the age of
superannuation, in the month of March 2016, extended to
31.03.2016 by virtue of FR 56(a). Rule 5(2) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules is squarely applicable which provides as follows: -
5(2) The day on which a Government servant retires
or is retired or is discharged or is allowed to resign
from service, as the case may be, shall be treated as
his last working day. The date of death shall also be
treated as a working day.
Hence the day on which the appellants retired they were in
service.
Page 7 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
15. In the present case, on the above principles we looked at
the Rules of 2017, which is the subject matter of controversy,
which is extracted hereunder: -
Application of the Revised Pay
st
(a) All employees who were in services on 31 March
st
2016 or who may have been appointed on or after 1
April 2016 shall draw pay in revised pay structure
(Pay Band with Grade Pay) applicable to the
posts/grades which they have been holding or to
which they may have been appointed as the case may
be.
Fitment benefit/revision of pensioner/family pensioners.
(a) The revised basic pension/family pension on
01.04.2016 of the pensioners/ family pensioners who
were drawing pension/ family pension on 31.03.2016
shall be fixed by multiplying the existing pension/ family
pension by a factor of 2.48 and the amount so computed
shall be rounded-of to the next multiple of Rs 10/-. The
basic pension for all purposes will be w.e.f. 01.04.2016.
(b) The revised basic pension in no case shall be lower
than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay
band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the
pre revised pay scale/pay band from which the
pensioner had retired. This is applicable to those
pensioners who retired on or before 31.03.2016 and after
completing 25/33 years of qualifying service as the case
may be.
16. Quite distinct from the Central Pay Commission
recommendations, referred to in the cited decisions, the Rules
of 2017 specifically provided for the benefit of pay revision to
all employees who are in service on 31.03.2016 and those who
have been appointed on or after 01.04.2016. The appellants by
Page 8 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
virtue of the FR 56(a), though attained the age of retirement
prior to 31.03.2016, having attained the age only in March 2016
will have their date of superannuation extended to 31.03.2016.
The FR does not provide for such extension to be merely for the
purpose of pay and allowances nor can there be a deemed
legal termination of employer-employee relationship be found
on the date of attaining the age of 60 years. The rule of
superannuation is clear and unambiguous that any person who
attained the age of superannuation in a month will retire only
on the last day of that month. Further by virtue of Rule 5(2) of
the CCS (Pension) Rules, on 31.03.2016 the appellants were in
service, and they are entitled to the pay revision brought in by
the Rules of 2017. Rule 5(2) of the CCS Pension Rules as
extracted hereinabove ensures that the last day of retirement,
in normal superannuation, as distinguished from a premature
or voluntary retirement, is a working day for which the
employee is entitled to salary.
17. The contentions based on Rule 32 of the Pay Revision
Rules of 2017 is also fallacious. Sub-rule 1 specifically provides
that the pension of any pensioner who retired prior to
01.04.2016 shall be revised w.e.f. 01.04.2016. Sub-rule 1(a)
Page 9 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
provides for computation of pension/family pension as on
31.03.2016 to those persons who were drawing the pension or
family pension as on 31.03.2016; which is not applicable to the
appellants since they were in service on 31.03.2016 and were
not drawing pension or family pension as on that date. Insofar
as sub-rule 1(b) is concerned, it only provides for a basic
pension not lower than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay
in the pay band and the grade pay, for those pensioners who
retired on or before 31.03.2016 and after completing 25/33
years of service. This is only an enabling, provision to ensure
a minimum pension to those who are not covered by the
revision, which cannot alter the date of effect of the pay revision
rules. It cannot be said that the appellants who were in service
on 31.03.2016 would not be entitled to the revised pay scales as
on 31.03.2016 by virtue of a provision enabling those who are
not entitled to the revision to a minimum basic pension. As we
noticed the Rules of 2017 are specific and those who are in
service on 31.03.2016 are to be granted the revision.
18. We set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court and restore that of the learned Single Judge. The
appellants shall be entitled to the pay revision as on 31.03.2016
Page 10 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.
and their pay for the month of March 2016 shall be determined
in the revised scales and such revised pay shall be reckoned
for computing the pension payable. The arrears of pay and
pension shall be paid within a period of six months, and the
revised pension shall commence from February 2026. The
arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6 % for each passed
year, if the above directions are not complied with and in the
event of interest liability arising for non-payment of arrears
within six months, as directed hereinabove, the respondent
shall pay the interest and would be entitled to recover the same
from the officers who caused the delay in such payment of
arrears.
19. The appeals are allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….……….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi
December 04, 2025.
Page 11 of 11
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.