Allowance under Rule 9-A requires 100% disability; a 50% disability claimant is ineligible.

The petitioner, a retired Group ‘C’ driver, had suffered 50% disability during service. He was subsequently continued in Government service in a different capacity and later retired on attaining superannuation, while receiving regular pension.

In O.A. No. 3110/2019, the Tribunal had quashed the respondents’ order dated 22 May 2019 and directed them to sanction disability pension and allowance as compensation in lump sum, in lieu of disability pension, together with arrears from 1 September 2011 and costs of ₹20,000, within twelve weeks.

The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance, particularly non-payment of the admissible allowance and costs.

The respondents stated that approximately ₹2,59,909 had been paid as lump-sum compensation, which the petitioner did not dispute.

The respondents further undertook to pay the directed costs of ₹20,000 within two weeks.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to disability pension under Rule 9(2) of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, rather than lump-sum compensation under Rule 9(3).

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the allowance under Rule 9-A of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules despite having suffered 50% disability.

Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s direction regarding payment of costs of ₹20,000.

The Tribunal applied Rules 9(2) and 9(3) of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules concerning disability pension and lump-sum compensation in lieu of disability pension.

It held that, under the operative order in the original application, the petitioner had been granted lump-sum compensation under Rule 9(3), and not disability pension under Rule 9(2).

The Tribunal also applied Rule 9-A, holding that the allowance contemplated by that provision is subject to the condition of 100% disability; a person suffering only 50% disability is not eligible for it.

Compliance with a judicial direction to pay costs is mandatory, particularly where the direction forms part of the Tribunal’s order and has been affirmed by the High Court.

The Tribunal examined the scope of its earlier order rather than reopening the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement.

Although the petitioner relied on Rule 9(2), the earlier order had specifically directed payment of disability pension and allowance as lump-sum compensation in lieu of disability pension.

Since the respondents had paid approximately ₹2,59,909 towards that compensation and the payment was undisputed, the Tribunal found compliance with that substantive direction.

The claim for the Rule 9-A allowance failed because the petitioner’s disability was admittedly 50%, whereas the Tribunal found 100% disability to be the condition precedent for such allowance.

However, the respondents could not avoid the separate direction for payment of ₹20,000 in costs. Their undertaking to pay the amount within two weeks was therefore accepted and treated as binding.

He was also not entitled to the Rule 9-A allowance because his disability was 50%, not 100%.

The respondents’ undertaking to pay ₹20,000 towards costs within two weeks was accepted.

Since the substantive monetary direction had been complied with and the remaining obligation was secured by the undertaking, the contempt petition was closed and any notices were discharged.