/2022 INSC 0107/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL    APPELLATE   JURISDICTION
CIVIL  APPEAL NO.  835   OF 2022
( ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL   LEAVE   PETITION   (C)   NO. 29384   OF   2018 )
STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER        ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ANIE LUKOSE .  …. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This   appeal   arises   out   of   the   judgment   dated   30.7.2018
passed   in   Writ   Appeal   No.   1513   of   2018     confirming   the
judgment   dated   19.2.2018   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
allowing the Writ Petition (C) No. 2573 of 2016.
3. The   facts   giving   rise   to   the   present   appeal   are   that   the
respondent   had   retired   as   selection   grade   Lecturer     on   availing
voluntary    retirement   w.e.f.  31.7.2006.    His  basic  pension   was
fixed in the pre­revised scale  at Rs. 8907/­ p.m..  Inadvertently,
1

in   the   verification   report,   the   basic   pension   was   erroneously
shown as Rs. 7138/­ p.m. (pre­revised).   Thereafter, on revision
in the scale of pay, it was enhanced to   Rs. 11,127/­ and made
effective   from   1.1.2006.     The   fixation   of   the   said   basic   pension
was   challenged   in   the   earlier   round   of   litigation   in   W.P.   (C)   No.
30847 of 2012.  The High Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2013
held   that   the   fixation   of     pension   at   Rs.   7138/­   was   erroneous
and   his   pension   of  Rs.  8907/­   (pre­revised)   ought   to   have   been
taken   into   account     at   the   time   of   revision   of   the   pay   and
pension   w.e.f.   1.1.2006.     The   said   judgment   has   not   been
challenged and therefore became final.   In view of the said fact,
prayer was made in WP(C) No. 2573 of 2016 to fix the pension @
Rs.   8907/­   in   pre­revised   and   Rs.   19333/­   as     per   revision   of
pay  and pension  of the appellant.
4. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has taken note of
the   fact   that   the   last   pay   drawn   by   the     appellant     was
Rs.   46,400/­   and   according   to   the   same,   his   pension   in   the
revised   scale   has   rightly   been   fixed   at   Rs.  19,333/­   on   account
of   completing   the   qualifying   service   by   her.     In   the   previous
round of litigation, the  fixation  made  @   Rs. 7138/­   in   pre­
revised   scale   and   Rs.   11,127/­   in   revised   scale     was   found
erroneous   by   the   High   Court.     However,   as   per   the   direction
2

made by the High Court,   fixation had rightly been proposed by
the   office   of   the     Accountant   General   on   completion   of   the
qualifying   service   by   her.     The   appellants   filed   a   Writ   Appeal
and   by   the   order   impugned,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court  held   that   the   Accountant  General   had   correctly   prepared
the   pension   paper,   fixing   the   pension   at   Rs.   19,334/­   in   the
revised scale.  The Division Bench declined to interfere with  the
order of the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend   that as
per   the   Circular   being   G.O.(P)   No.   230/2012/Fin.   dated
19.04.2012,   it   is   clarified   that   for   computing   the   10   months’
emoluments for the purpose of average emoluments in respect of
employees   who   retired   from   service   on   or   after   1.1.2006,   the
average   emoluments   are   required   to   be   counted.     The   average
emoluments have been clarified in   Clause 63 of Annexure P­18
regarding   Kerala   Service   Rules.     It   is   contended   that   the
respondent   had     retired   after   one   month   of   re­joining   from   the
leave   for   about   two   years   without   allowances,   therefore,   the
order   impugned,   confirming   the   order   of   the   learned   Single
Judge, is wholly unjustified.
6. On   the   other   hand,     learned   counsel   for   the   respondent
has argued with vehemence and contended that the Accountant
3

General has rightly made the fixation of the pension in the pre­
revised and revised scales of pay, relying upon the circulars and
the order of the High Court passed earlier.   Therefore, the order
impugned   has   rightly   been   passed   by   the   High   Court,   which
does not warrant interference. 
7. After   having   heard     learned   counsel   for   the   parties   at
length   and   on   perusal   of   the   fixation   made   by   the   office   of   the
Accountant   General,   sent   to   the   Principal   Secretary   (Finance),
Finance   (Pension   B)     Department,   Thiruvananthapuram,   it   is
clear   that   the   pension   of   the   respondent   was   fixed   at   @   Rs.
19334/­   w.e.f.   1.3.2010.     The   said   fact   has   not   been
controverted in the counter­affidavit, as apparent from the order
of the learned Single Judge.  For  reverting  the arguments of the
appellants   with   reference   to   the   revised   Circular     dated
19.4.2012,   it   is   necessary   to   refer   to   the   original   Circular   G.O.
(P)   No.   211/2011/Fin   dated   7.5.2011,   specially   Clause   2(2)
relevant to the facts of the present case, which is reproduced as
thus:
“For   computing   10   months’   emolument   for   the
purpose   of   average   emoluments,   in   respect   of
employees   who   retired   from   service   on   or   after
1.1.2006 and who , during part of the said period
of 10 months, drawn pay in the pre­revised scale,
their   pay   in   the   pre­revised   scale   may   be
enhanced notionally by adding  DA at 74%”.
4

8. The   said   clause   has   been   modified   vide   Circular   G.O.(P)
No.   230/2012/Fin     dated   19.4.2012   ,   which   is   reproduced   as
thus:
“For   computing   10   months’     emoluments   for   the
purpose   of   average   emoluments   in   respect   of
employees   who   retired   from   service   on   or   after
1.1.2006   and   who,   during   the   part   of   10   months,
drew pay in the pre­revised scale, their pay in the
pre­revised   scale   may   be   enhanced   notionally   to
the   initial   pay   drawn   in   the   revised   scale   which
came   into   force   with   effect   from   1.2.2006.     Para
2.2   of   GO   read   above   and   modified   to   this   extent.
Para   2.1   of   the   GO   read   above   shall   not   be
applicable to the above category.”
9. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that for computing
10  months  emoluments  for   the   purpose  of  average  emoluments
in   respect   of   an   employee,   who   retired   from   service   on   or   after
1.1.2006 and who during part 10 months draws pay in the pre­
revised   scale,   their   pay     in   the   pre­revised   scale   may   be
enhanced notionally to the initial pay drawn in the revised scale,
which   came   into   force   w.e.f.   1.1.2006.     Average   emolument,   as
specified in the Rules,  is required to be calculated as per Note 1
Clause 63 of Annexure P­18, from which it is clear that if during
this   period,   an   employee   had   been   absent   from   duty,   on   leave
5

with   or   without   allowances,   which   qualified   for   pension   or
having   been   suspended,   but   re­instated   in   service,   without
forfeiture   of     service,   his   emoluments   for   the   purpose   of
ascertaining   the   average     would   be   taken,   at   what   they   would
have   been,   had   he   not   been   absent   from   duty   or   suspended
provided that the benefit of pay in any officiating post would be
admissible only if it is certified that he would have continued to
hold that officiating post but for leave or suspension.  Therefore,
it  is  clear    that  part of  10  months  would  not mean  the  past 10
months   and   if     the   employee   had     remained   on   leave   without
allowances, even their calculation as per the last pay drawn had
rightly   been   made   by   the   office   of   Accountant   General   as
referred by learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in
the orders impugned.
10. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,     we   do   not   find   any
error   in   the   order   impugned,   warranting   interference   in   this
appeal.     Accordingly,   this   appeal   is   dismissed.   No   order   as   to
costs.
………………………….J.
[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
6

……………………………J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 1, 2022.
7