1991 (9) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT

Whether High Court has rewritten the retirement benefit provisions of the First Schedule to tile Act which it was not entitled to and the refixation of the pension on that basis was wholly illegal and unconstitutional?

Held that:- High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and power in amending and altering the provisions of paragraph 2 by substituting different minimum period for eligibility of pension in paragraph 2 of Part I. Since the respondent has not put in seven completed years of service for pension he will be eligible for pension at the rates provided in paragraph 9 of Part I of the First Schedule to the Act, that is to say for the period from 4.10.1983 to 31.10.1986 at the rate of ₹ 8,400 per annum and for the period on and from November 1, 1986 at the rate of ₹ 15,750 per annum.

Puring the pendency of the appeal in this Court in the proceedings dated December 15, 1988 the Government of India communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Lucknow, in compliance with the mandamus issued by the High Court, that the President of India was pleased to sanction the addition of one month and 13 days to the service of the respondent to make it six years of completed service subject to the final decision in this appeal. Since the addition of one month and 13 days does not make any difference in calculation of pension as we have already stated, this Presidential sanction has become relevant only for the purpose of calculating the gratuity under section 17A(3) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.