Retired Postmaster’s Pension Must Reflect Last Pay Drawn While Officiating In HSG-I, CAT Orders Recalculation

In brief

The question

1. Whether an employee who retires while officiating in a higher post is entitled to have pensionary benefits calculated by reference to the pay drawn in that post, notwithstanding that the officiating promotion was not regularised.

The court held

The Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the respondents to issue an appropriate pension order taking into account the applicant’s last pay drawn, together with arrears, within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

It also directed

If payment was not made within that period, the applicant was held entitled to interest at the GPF rate.

No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The applicant, a retired Head Postmaster, worked in an officiating HSG-I Postmaster capacity at Srikakulam and Amadalavalasa Head Post Offices during various periods from 7 September 2002 until his superannuation on 31 May 2005.

pp. 3–4

He challenged the rejection of his request to have his pension and other retirement benefits calculated by reference to the pay of the HSG-I post in which he had officiated.

p. 2, 4

The respondents maintained that his officiating promotion had not been regularised and that service in the post did not amount to regular appointment.

p. 4

The applicant relied on the Tribunal’s decision in YSSV Prasad v. Department of Posts, OA/717/2013.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether an employee who retires while officiating in a higher post is entitled to have pensionary benefits calculated by reference to the pay drawn in that post, notwithstanding that the officiating promotion was not regularised.

pp. 5–6

ii.2. Whether granting that pensionary relief would require the Tribunal to treat the applicant as regularly appointed or promoted to the higher post.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Tribunal relied on the principle that pension may be fixed by reference to the last pay drawn while the employee was officiating in the post at retirement, as applied in YSSV Prasad v. Department of Posts, OA/717/2013.

pp. 2–3, 5

It also relied on Selva Raj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair, (1998) 4 SCC 291, which recognised a claim to the salary attached to a post actually worked in, without treating payment as conferring a promotion.

p. 6

The Tribunal treated entitlement to pay or pension based on actual officiation as distinct from regular appointment to the higher post.

pp. 5–6

04Reasoning

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had worked in an officiating capacity until retirement and confined its consideration to the basis for calculating his retirement benefits, not whether he should receive regular appointment to HSG-I.

p. 5

Applying the principle in YSSV Prasad and the reasoning in Selva Raj, it concluded that the absence of regularisation did not preclude pension calculation by reference to the last pay drawn while officiating.

pp. 5–6

The relief therefore concerned pensionary computation and did not amount to granting regular promotion.

pp. 5–6