By the impugned order it has been stated that the petitioner's pension has wrongly been fixed on account of option given by him on 1.1.1996. Which is the order, by which such an option was asked for and under which provision such an option is required is not clear from various documents filed along with the writ petition as well as counter and rejoinder affidavits.
Sri A.P.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit. Relying upon Rule 22-B of the Financial Hand Book which provides for increment on promotion, he submits that according to the aforesaid Rule and according to the chart of 5th Pay Commission, the petitioner, who was getting salary of Rs. 1600/- upon the implementation of the recommendation, would be entitled to Rs. 4875/- which was paid to the petitioner rightly and now the petitioner has retired, his pension has been fixed treating his pay to be Rs. 4500/-.
Learned counsel for the respondents may give specific answer as to under which provision such an option has been exercised by the petitioner. He is allowed ten days' time to file response to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit. In the said response, it will also be indicated as to whether Rule 22-B of the Financial Hand Book is applicable in the case of the petitioner or not.
List this matter on 3rd November, 2014.
Order Date :- 15.10.2014/SKM