Pensionary benefits
Syed Sadiq Hussain
(Querist) 12 May 2016
This query is : Resolved
Dear experts
A few days ago I had already sought the advise on this topic. But, as I had not explained the facts and circumstances of my case, I could not get effective guidance by the experts.
My case is that I was absent from duty as on the date of enforcement of revised pay rules and retired from duty during my unauthorised absence period. Departmental authorities had accorded me the sanction for fixing my pay in revised scale and the payment of retiral benefits computed based thereupon.
The Pay and Accounts Officer, suo moto and unilaterally, has authorised my pensionary benefits taking into account the actual pay drawn by me, immediately before the date of commencement of my absence, in the old scale.
In a similar case the HC had quashed the action of the PAO and upheld the sanction of Department. The Division Bench of the HC too had confirmed the judgement of the Single Bench. The entire benefits, as per the departmental sanction, were paid the petitioner in that case upon his filing Contempt Petition. As such, I had requested the PAO for revising my Pensionary Benefits by extending the benefit of the judgement of the HC which covers my case from all four corners. But, PAO had informed me that as it is decided to file SLP before the SC against the judgement and order of the HC I cannot be extended the benefit thereof.
Now, the operation of the judgement and order impugned by the PAO in the SLP filed by him came to be stayed by the SC I am adversely affected by the Interim Order of the SC.
Therefore, experts may kindly advise me as to whether I may become intervener in the said SLP.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 12 May 2016
The other thread is at:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Service-Matter-Providing-Clarification-595876.asp#.VzQvcdJ97IU
It shall be appropriate to post in the old and original thread.
A lot seems to have already been discussed, in the old and original thread.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 12 May 2016
The experts may also go thru another similar/interesting thread at:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Can-an-implemented-judgement-be-challenged--596971.asp#.VzQwiNJ97IU
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 14 May 2016
please intimate whether you received any salary for the period of absence?
whether right to draw higher salary fell during the period of absence?
P. Venu
(Expert) 14 May 2016
The facts stated here, I am afraid, are at variance with those in the earlier posting.
Now that the Leave has been granted and the HC decision stayed, you need to wait for the judgment of the Apex Court.
Even then, the facts in your case could be distinguished from those covered by the SLP.
Syed Sadiq Hussain
(Querist) 14 May 2016
Dear sir (Shri P. Venu ji),
I salute you for the legal action taken during your sevice to protect the rights of your subordites which were sought to be snatched away from them basing on a mere speach of Hon'ble C.M. without amending the rules.
Kindly excuse me for this reference, because the avoidance of it is beyond my control. The bona fide interest behind this is to make make you to appriciate the fact that when an officer, like you was made to face such situation on account of the arbitrary interpretition of rules, what would be the fate of ordinary Government servants like me.
Sir, my case is very simple. And now I feel it absolutely necessary to refer to the rules by which my case of fixation pay is covered.
Kindly, peruse the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2012. The same provide that the pay of every such Government servant who was in service as on 01/04/2012 shall be fixed in the reised scale from that date and no option is needed to be exercised by the Government servant for being governed by the revised pay scales
Thereby, the said rules mandate that the payment of DA @ 76% and IR @ 15% (which were admissible as on 01/04/2012) shall be discontinued from 01/04/2012. The first instalment of DA in the revised scales was payable from 01/07/2012 and till then no DA
was paid.
Thus, the mere fact of act of remaining absent from duty either on account of suspension or unauthorised absent will not render liable the absentee Government servant for the deprivation of 91.75% of the DA & IR which were being paid to him till 31/03/2012 base on the old pay.
Unlike the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules the rules cited above do not provide for continuing the State Employees on old pay scales with the allowances admissible thereon.
Sir, please review the opinion not in the capacity of a legal expert but as if yiu are ny boss and implementing the pay rules aforesaid.
I am attaching herewith the extract of provisions of pay rules which provided for exercising option and as well the rules which abolished the system of option for your kind perusal.
