No.
38/189/2005-P&PW (F)
Government
of
Ministry
of Personnel, PG & Pensions
Department
of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare
3rd Floor, Loknayak
Bhawan
New Delhi-110003
Dated: 27.10.2005
Office Memorandum
Subject: Payment of
difference of Gratuity by adding DA prevailing at the time of retirement to
pre-1996 Central Government Pensioners - representation citing Supreme Court Judgements - clarification regarding.
The undersigned is directed to say
that a number of representations have been received asking whether in pursuance
of certain Supreme Court Judgements, any orders have
been issued in the case of pre-1996 pensioners for payment of difference of
Gratuity by adding DA prevailing at the time of retirement.
2. For the purpose of calculating various
retirement benefits including gratuity of Central Government employees, the
term 'emoluments' prevailing prior to 1.1.1996 was "basic pay" only.
Consequent upon acceptance of Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations, w.e.f. 1.1.1996, DA admissible on the date of
retirement/death has also been included in the definition of emoluments besides
basic pay, for the purpose of all kinds of gratuity including DCRG. The
Government has not agreed to extend the benefits to retirees who retired/died
prior to 1.1.1996 as for grant of any benefit,
prescription of a cut-off-date is essential keeping in view various constraints
including financial constraints. This has already been clarified vide OM No.
38/42/2005-P&PW (F) dated 17.2.2005.
3. It is clarified that there is no
Supreme Court Judgement specifying that pre-1996
pensioners may have to be paid additional gratuity by adding DA at the time of
the retirement. However, the factual position about Supreme Court Judgements being quoted by the pre-1.1.1996 pensioners in
their representations, is as under:
(i) Supreme
Court Judgement dated 22.9.2000 in Appeal (Civil)
5346 of 1997 - UOI and Others
Regarding excerpts from the above Judgement of Supreme Court being quoted in the representations,
on perusal of the judgement it has been observed that
those are not exact reproduction from the judgement.
The relevant sentence in the judgement reads as
under:
"(c) Where an employee at the
time of retirement is entitled to pension under the relevant rules, any
subsequent amendment to the relevant rules enhancing pension or conferring
additional benefit would be also applicable to him."
The above-mentioned sentence
contained in the judgement is the observation made by
the Supreme Court while analyzing its judgement in
another case of UOI & Others Vs. Lieut. Mrs. E. Lacats
(1997) 7 SCC 334. However, in its final decision the Hon'ble
Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Tribunal
and allowed the appeal filed by the Government.
(ii) SLP No. 11043/95
and CA No. 937/95 by the Supreme Court on 13.2.2000 in UOI Vs Pritam Singh and Kulwant Singh
As regards extension of benefits of
the Judgement in Pritam
Singh and Kulwant Singh's case, Ministry of Law
has opined that the judgement covers only the parties
of the case and as such it has no universal application. Therefore, the benefit
of this judgement cannot be extended to others.
(iii) Judgement
passed on 9.10.1998 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998 in V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of
The Supreme Court Judgement is about enhancement of pension of State Bank of
Sd/-
( M.P. Singh )
Director
(PP)
Tel.
24624802
To
1.
'persmin.nic.in' - website
of the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions
2.
All Ministries/Departments of Government of
3.
Copy to C&AG
4.
Controller General of Accounts
5.
Controller of General of Defence
Accounts
6.
As per standard mailing list.
| Signed Copy : | |
| English Version | Hindi Version |