Civil No 1155 of 1987
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
SP Malik and Mrs Lalitha Kaushik for the Petitioner
Anil Dev Singh R Venkataramani RB Mishra and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
The petitioner was the Additional Registrar of this Court
His normal date of retirement was March 31 1987
He however sought for voluntary retirement from the service of this Court and on his application in that regard the following order dated December 6 1985 was communicated to him by the Registrar of this Court OFFICE ORDER The Hon ble the Chief Justice of India has accepted the notice of Shri section Banerjee Offg
Additional Registrar Perma nent Deputy Registrar seeking voluntary retirement from service under the provisions of Rule 48A of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules 1972 and has permitted him to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court of India with effect from the forenoon of January 1 1986
 564 It is clear from the order extracted above that the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1 1986
After the retirement of the petitioner the Fourth Central Pay Commission for short Pay Commission  gave its report recommending the revision of salaries and pension of the Government employees
It is not disputed that the above recommendations of the Pay Commission have been accepted by the Government and that the benefit thereof is also avail able to the employees of this Court
Paragraph 173 of Chapter 17 of Part II at page 93 of the Report of the Pay Commission provides as follows 173 In the case of employees retiring during the period January 1 1986 to September 30 1986 Government may consider treating the entire dearness allowance drawn by them up to December 31 1985 as pay for pensionary bene fits
 The petitioner claimed the benefit of the recommendation of the Pay Commission as contained in the said paragraph 173 but it was not allowed on the ground that he did not as he was not entitled to draw salary for January 1 1986 in view of the proviso to rule 52 of the Central Civil Service Pension Rules 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Rules 
Rule 52 reads as follows 52
The day on which a Government servant retires or is retired or is discharged or is allowed to resign from service as the case may be shall be treated as his last working day
The date of death shall also be treated as a working day
Provided that in the case of a Gov ernment servant who is retired pre maturely or who retires voluntarily under clause j to m of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules or Rule 48 or Rule 48 A as the case may be the date of retirement shall be treated as a non working day
 At the hearing of the writ petition it has also been vehemently urged on behalf of the respondents that as in view of the proviso to rule 52 of the Rules the date of retirement of the petitioner should be treated as a non working day or in other words as the petitioner was not entitled to the salary for the day of his retirement he was not 565 entitled to the benefit of the recommendation of the Pay Commission as contained in paragraph
173 of the report extracted above
Under paragraph 173 the benefits recommended will be available to employees retiring during the period January 1 1986 to September 30 1986
So the employees retiring on January 1 1986 will be entitled to the benefit under para graph 173
The question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner has retired on January 1 1986
We have already extracted the order of this Court dated Decem ber 6 1985 whereby the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1 1986
It is true that in view of the proviso to rule 52 of the Rules the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the day on which he actually retired
But in our opinion that has no bearing on the question as to the date of re tirement
Can it be said that the petitioner retired on December 31 1985 The answer must be in the negative
Indeed Mr Anti Dev Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents frankly conceded that the peti tioner could not be said to have retired on December 31 1985
It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had retired from the service of this Court on December 31 1985
Then it must be held that the petitioner had retired with effect from January 1 1986 and that is also the order of this Court dated December 6 1985
It may be that the petitioner had retired with effect from the forenoon of January 1 1986 as per the said order of this Court that is to say as soon as January 1 1986 had com menced the petitioner retired
But nevertheless it has to be said that the petitioner had retired on January 1 1986 and not on December 31 1985
In the circumstances the petitioner comes within the purview of paragraph 173 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission
After the conclusion of the hearing of the writ peti tion an additional affidavit purported to have been af firmed by Mr PL Sakarwal the Director Justice of the Department of Justice
In paragraph 8 of the affidavit the deponent has craved leave of this Court to file this addi tional affidavit
It does not appear from the copy of the purported additional affidavit whether it has been affirmed or not inasmuch as no date of affirmation has been mentioned therein
Be that as it may a photocopy of the Office Memo randum dated April 14 1987 of the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Pensions  Pensioners  Welfare has been annexed
It is submitted in the additional affidavit that the pension of Government servants retiring between 111986 and 3061987 is to be governed in terms of 566 paragraphs 101 102 and 11 of the said Office Memorandum
Further it has been submitted that the petitioner had ceased to be in the employment of the Supreme Court with effect from 111986 FN and accordingly the said Office Memorandum is not applicable to the petitioner
Paragraph 31 of the Office Memorandum provides inter alia that the revised provisions as per these orders shall apply to Government servants who retiredie in harness on or after 111986
The said Office Memorandum will therefore be applicable to Government servants retiring on 111986
There is therefore no substance in the contention that the Office Memorandum dated April 14 1987 will not apply to the petitioner
Be that as it may we have already held that the petitioner had retired with effect from 111986 and he comes within the purview of paragraph 173 of the recommen dations of the Pay Commission
In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to calculate and pay to the petitioner within three months from today his pension in accordance with the recommendation of the Pay Commission as contained in paragraph 173 extracted above
There will however be no order as to costs
PSS Petition allowed


Summary:
The appellant Panchayat owned 1200 Bighas of land in Village Kanonda Distt
Rohtak in Haryana
A Scheme of con solidation of Holdings under Section 20 of the East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1948 was confirmed on 1511974 as a result whereof the Panchayat s land was consolidated repartitioned and allot ted to persons allegedly having no right to hold the same with the result the Panchayat was reduced as a landless person and financially weak
The Panchayat therefore on 2091977 moved an application under section 42 of the Act objecting to the utilization of the Land of the value of 2 Two annas and the allotments made to other right holders
After hearing the parties the Director of Consolidation of Holdings by his order dated 8279 set aside the scheme and remanded the case to the consolidation officer with some directions
The Director took the view that even though the application had been made much beyond the period of limita tion of six months contemplated under Rule 18 yet in view of the fact that the Panchayat had no other land to culti vate due to which the Panchayat was unable to develop the agricultural Schemes condoned the delay and allowed the application as aforesaid
Against the said orders the Re spondents moved the High Court by means of a Writ Petition urging inter alia that the Director had condoned the delay without there being any ground for the same and thus had acted illegally
The High Court held that the Director condoned the delay on extraneous considerations and accord ingly quashed the impugned 577 order of 8279 passed by the Director
Hence the Panchayat has filed this appeal after obtaining Special Leave
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD Per KN Saikia  M Fathima Beevi JJ Section 42 of the Act envisages proceedings wherein order is passed scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made
These are the distinct proceedings for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under this section
585B Applying Rule 18 the application has to be one under section 42 of the Act and it has to be against an order and under the first proviso a certified copy of the order is required to accompany the application and in computing the period of limitation of six months the time spent in ob taining the certified copy is to be excluded
585F
Rule 18 has to be interpreted as it is found and the words of the rule are simple precise and unambiguous and no more is necessary than to understand these words in their natural and ordinary sense
Two different meanings cannot be given to the same word order namely that in section 42 it does not include scheme prepared or confirmed or reparti tion made while in Rule 18 it would include them
586B C The Rule did not come into play when a petitioner chal lenged either the scheme of consolidation including its preparation or confirmation or the repartition made in pursuance thereof
The amendment made this position clear
586E Though section 42 envisaged orders preparation or confirmation of scheme and repartition separately Rule 18 provides for limitation only in respect of an application under that section in a proceeding where an order was passed
There is the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another
When mention has been made only of orders the inference would be that preparation or confirmation of scheme and repartition are excluded
588F G In matters like consolidation of Holdings by a scheme and the preparation and confirmation of the scheme and repartition thereafter the objections may arise at various stages for various reasons and it will 578 not be possible to prescribe any hard and fast rule as to the reasonable period after which an application could be made under section 42 of the Act
The Legislature itself did not do so
589C D In the instant case it has not been shown that the Panchayat earlier moved an application under section 42 on the same subject matter
There is no material to hold that the instant order of the Director is an order of review of his earlier order
590A Per K Ramaswamy J As regards the exercise of the power under sections 19  20 the statute does not envisage passing any orders
But when exercising the power the officer is enjoined to pass orders and appeals are provided within the prescribed limi tation against those orders to the appellate forums
This also is an indication of the fact that the limitation of six months is confined to the orders to be revised under section 42
580C D The prescription of limitation of six months under Rule 18 would be confined only to order passed by an officer under the Act it would not apply to the revision filed against the scheme prepared on confirmed or repartition made in pursuance thereof
580F It is undoubted that when there is no limitation pre scribed for exercise of the revisional power under section 42 against the schemes prepared or confirmed or repartition made it would be exercised within a reasonable time
580G What is reasonable time is always a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case
580G When legislature chose not to fix a particular period of limitation by judicial dicta it is not permissible to limit to a particular period
While exercising power under Sec tion 42 the revisional authority may take into account the long lapse of time as a factor in the light of the facts and circumstances obtainable in an appropriate case
No abso lute or precise period of limitation could be predicted or laid
580H Jagtar Singh vs Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Jullundar AIR 1984 Punjab  Haryana 216 ap proved
Haqiqat Singh vs Addl
Director Consolidation of Hold ings AIR 1981 Punjab  Haryana 204 Joginder Singh  Ors
vs The Director 579 Consolidation of Holdings and Harbha jan Singh vs Karam Singh  Anr   referred to