Pay drawn in a duly authorized officiating post counts as pensionable emoluments.

The applicant, a retired Junior Accounts Officer, had held the JAO post in an officiating capacity from 27 September 2002 until his retirement on 30 April 2012, subject to brief breaks between spells.

He challenged the fixation of his pension, contending that it failed to account for the pay he had drawn as an officiating JAO.

The respondents maintained that he held the post of Senior Accountant substantively and was not entitled to JAO pay for pension purposes.

He sought recalculation of pension and retiral benefits, as well as other reliefs.

1. Whether pay actually drawn by the applicant while holding the JAO post in an officiating capacity was to be included as pensionable emoluments under Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

2. Whether the respondents’ reliance on the Chennai Bench decision in O.A. No. 839/2014 required rejection of the applicant’s claim.

Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 defines “emoluments” by reference to basic pay as defined in Rule 9(21)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. That provision includes pay sanctioned for a post held substantively or in an officiating capacity; the rules do not exclude pay merely because the post was held officiatingly.

The Tribunal distinguished the Chennai Bench decision in O.A. No. 839/2014, which concerned an employee found inherently unqualified for the officiating post.

It also distinguished Government of A.P. v. Syed Yousuddin Ahmed, (1997) 7 SCC 24, which concerned whether an incentive award formed part of pensionable emoluments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had continuously drawn JAO pay for more than nine years and seven months before retirement, and that the respondents did not contend he was unqualified to hold that post.

Because Rule 33, read with the relevant Fundamental Rule, includes pay sanctioned for a post held in an officiating capacity, the Tribunal found no basis to exclude his JAO pay from pensionable emoluments solely because his appointment was officiating.

The Chennai decision was therefore distinguishable, as the applicant’s eligibility for the JAO post was not disputed.

Consequential arrears were to be calculated and released within 90 days of receipt of the order; no order as to costs was made.