The petitioner is a retired employee of the 1st respondent Corporation, who retired from service on 30-04- 1998. Grievance is with respect to computation of monthly pension. It is complained that the respondents have not properly reckoned the average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months in his service for fixing the monthly pension. It is stated that, based on a bilateral agreement executed between the 1st respondent Corporation and its employees on 13-04-1999, retrospective revision of the pay and pension was allowed with effect from 01-03-1997. Accordingly the petitioner, he had opted for the pay revision with effect from 06-04-1998 and his pay was revised on that basis. But a corresponding revision of the pension by computing the last 10 month's emoluments based on the revision was not made. According to the petitioner, since his last pay was revised as Rs.9,630/- the average emoluments would come between Rs.9,400/- and Rs.9,630/-. The petitioner made Ext.P2 representation before the 1st respondent seeking re-computation of the average emoluments, for the purpose of fixing the monthly pension. Since the said request was not considered, this writ petition is filed.
2. In the counter affidavit of the respondents it is admitted that, the bilateral agreement dated 13.04.1999 was implemented with effect from 01.03.1997. It is further admitted that the petitioner had opted for revision of pay with effect from 06.04.1998 and accordingly his pay was revised in the '1997 pay scale' with effect from the said date. According to the respondents the average emoluments was worked out on the basis of total emoluments actually drawn for the last 10 months. The actual emoluments actually drawn by him from 01.07.1997 to 30.04.1998 was reckoned for the said purpose. Since the petitioner had opted for revision only from 06.04.1998 the computation was made at the pre-revised rate for the period from 01.07.1997 to 05.04.1998 and at the revised rate from 06.04.1998 to 30.04.1998.
3. According to the petitioner the method of calculation adopted as enumerated in the counter affidavit is erroneous. Learned counsel for the petitioner had produced copy of proceedings issued by the 1st respondent Corporation dated 07.10.1999 (No.PLB6-030791/99). The said proceedings was issued with respect to the revision of pension and other related benefits subsequent to the revision of pay scale from 01.03.1997 onwards. Clause 9 of the said order reads as follows;
“Average emoluments for pension in respect of employees who retired from service from 01.03.1997 or there after without having benefits of the Revised Scale.
For computing the ten months emoluments for the purpose of average emoluments for pension in respect of employee who retired from service on or after 01.03.1997 and who, during part of the said period of 10 months, drew pay in the pre-revised scale, their pay in the pre-revised scale may be enhanced notionally by adding D.A. at 1510 points of A I C P I admissible to the serving employees as on 01.01.1996.”
It is evident that by virtue of the bipartite agreement the 1st respondent Corporation had accepted revision of pension consequent to 1997 pay revision based on the terms and conditions incorporated in the said order. The provision extracted above would indicate that if an employee who retired from service after 01.03.1997 drew pay in the revised scale during a part of the period of last 10 months, their pay in the pre-revised scale need to be enhanced notionally by adding D.A. at 1510 points of A I C P I admissible to the serving employees as on 01.01.1996. Going by terms of the above said order passed by the 1st respondent Corporation, the matter requires reconsideration with respect to the method of computation adopted. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that if the petitioner desires to verify and satisfy about the calculation, he will be permitted by approaching the office of the Chairman and Managing Director.
4. This court is of the opinion that it is for the Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st respondent Corporation to consider Ext.P2 and to finalise the grievance regarding error if any in calculation of 10 months' average emoluments, based on the claim raised by the petitioner. Therefore the 1st respondent is hereby directed to deal with the matter in accordance with the relevant orders applicable to the petitioner, after affording opportunity of personal hearing. An appropriate decision in the matter shall be taken by the Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st respondent Corporation at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is hereby disposed of on the basis of the above direction.
AMG/Pn Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge