1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 1998 Shri.T.V.Subramanian. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.Union of India & others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Suresh Pakle, for Petitioner. Mr.Y.R.Mishra with Mr.O.A.Dubey, for Respondent no.1. Mr.M.Naik i/b. M/s.Salgaonkar & Co., for Respondent no.3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 14th July,2009. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner is making a grievance about re-working of his pensionary benefits by the Authority. Admittedly, the petitioner was in service of Respondent no.3  TATA Institute of Social Sciences which is a deemed university, till 14.7.1993. He applied for voluntary retirement. He was permitted 2 to retire voluntarily. Then he joined services of Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research with effect from 15.7.1993. When his pensionary benefits were worked out by the TATA Institute of Social Sciences, he was held entitled to dearness allowance while paying his pension. Thereafter, it was discovered that the petitioner is in the service of Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research which is controlled by Reserve Bank of India and Government of India. As per the policy decision of the Government of India an employee who is paid pension from Public funds, if he joins services of another institute which is also funded from public funds and receiving dearness allowance, while working out his pensionary benefits dearness allowance should not be taken into consideration. Therefore, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were re-worked and he was held not entitled to the dearness allowance while working out his pension. The petitioner being aggrieved by that action has filed this petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Indira 3 Gandhi Institute of Development Research is not working under the Central Government or the State Government or is not a Corporation, company, body or bank controlled by the Central Government or State Government, and therefore, according to the petitioner he is not governed by Rule 55 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and the decision of the Government of India. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner first submitted that the order reducing pensionary benefits of the petitioner could not have been made without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It is an admitted position that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were reduced without giving him an opportunity of being heard. With the help of the Advocate for petitioner, therefore, we have gone through the record to find out whether giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, will be an empty formality or will serve any fruitful purpose. The decision of the Government of India which is referred to in letter dated 28.7.1997 reads as under:- a) As per GOI s order, if a pensioner is re-employed under the Central Govt. or State Govt. or in a Corporation/Company/Body/Bank 4 in India or abroad including permanent absorption in such Corporation/ Company/ Body/Bank, he/she shall not be eligible to draw Dearness Allowance on pension/family pension during the period of such re- employment. According to this decision, if a pensioner who is receiving pension from Government of India or State Government or any Corporation or Company or Body or Bank controlled by the State Govt. either in India or abroad gets employment in the Corporation or Company or Body or Bank controlled by the Central or State Government then he is not eligible to draw Dearness Allowance on pension during the period in which his re-employment continues. To the similar effect there is a provision in Rule 55 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research where he is re-employed is not controlled by the Central Government or State Government. In order to find out whether there is any substance in this contention, we perused the record. We find that Indira Gandhi Institute of Development 5 Research itself has stated in its letter thus:- 3. The status of the Institute, prior to the grant of deemed university status, and now is that of an advanced research institution, registered under the Societies Registration Act and Bombay Public Trust Act. The Institute was and is being funded by the Reserve Bank of India. It is thus clear that Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research is funded by Reserve Bank of India. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of that Institute, alongwith that affidavit the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations have been annexed. Perusal of the Memorandum of Association shows that it is a Society registered under the Societies Act. Rule IX deals with the management of the Institution. Perusal of that list shows that all the Directors of the Institute are the officers either of R.B.I. or of the Planning Commission or of the bodies which are controlled by the Central Government. Clause XIX empowers the RBI to cause inspection of the institution and its working either of its own move or as directed by the 6 Government of India. It is, thus, clear that Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research is funded by the RBI and its working is fully controlled by the RBI and Government of India, and therefore, it comes under the description of body or corporation controlled by the Central Government . There is no dispute before us that while receiving his pay on re-employment in Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, the petitioner is receiving Dearness allowance. The whole object of Government of India s orders and Rule 55 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules is to prevent payment of dearness allowance twice from public funds. The petitioner was getting dearness allowance from public funds as a part of pension and also receiving dearness allowance as a part of his salary from Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research. He was receiving his pension as also pay both from public funds inasmuch as TATA Institute of Social Sciences is a deemed University and funded by Government of India and Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research is also controlled by Government of India and funded from public funds. In our opinion, therefore, the object 7 of the provision is wholesome and no exception can be taken to it, and therefore, it cannot be said that any useful purpose will be served by asking the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, because the petitioner has no defence to offer. In our opinion, it cannot be said that any injustice has been done to the petitioner by stopping payment of dearness allowance to him while calculating his pension. In our opinion, considering that we are hearing this petition in our extraordinary jurisdiction under Constitution of India and when we find that the action against which the grievance is made, has not resulted in any injustice to the petitioner, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the action taken. In the result therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)