IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. f r {38s—F ‘ WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2003. PETITIONER : ShiVvRam Dewangan, S/o; late shri R‘D. Dewangan, aged about 65 years’ Retd. Asst, z Distt. Excise officer, R/c. Dharampura, JAGDALPUR, Distto Bastar (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS st ate of Chh atti sgarh, through : secretary, pimnmq M$1~ D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur. The Jaint Director, Accounts Treasuries 5: Pension Raipur (Chhattisgarh) . The Divisional Joint Director, Accounts Treasuries 5: PenSion. Gwalior C M3. The District Treasury officer. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). WgWM HIGH COURT OF CI-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3867 0f2003 PETITIONER : Shiv Ram Dewangan.’ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotrL J. Present: Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents 1, 2 and 4. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 02“ day of December, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 02.05 2003 (Annexure P/3) issued by the District Treasury Officer, Jagdalpur, Bastar whereby a direction was made to make deduction from the date ofpayment of first commuted value ofpension. The'indisputable facts? as projected by the petitioner, in brief are that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.1996 from the post of Assistant District Excise Officer, posted at Durg. Pursuant to the acceptance of 5th Pay Commission by the State Government, the pension of the petitioner was revised by order dated 06.10.2001 (Annexure P/l). A revised pension order was passed accordingly on 5.3.2002 (Annexure P/2). It was directed that a pension of Rs. 3748/- was sanctioned and commuted value of Rs. l,56,774/- was to be paid to the petitioner. Accordingly, it was calculated to pay a sum of Rs. 2499 per month as pension from the date of receipt of commutate value 0f pension or from the date of issuance of the order whenever three months \\ are completed. Pension was to be paid for 15 years or 75 years whichever \ _.\ \ \ 2 . was later. On 25.3.2003, the respondent No. 4 issued an order and directed that the monthly deductions are to be made from the date of payment of first commuted value of pension. The petitioner was getting a pension of Rs. 2499/— per month after deducting Rs. 1249/— towards commutation from December, .2002. The deductions were made &om 01.03.1996 to November, 2002 at the rate of Rs. 180/— per month and in this way, a total sum of Rs. 14,580/- was recovered from the petitioner. Shri Bharat. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revised commutated value of pension was received by the petitioner in the month of January, 2003 and as such, the deduction ought to have been made from December, 2002 or January, .2003, but the same has been done w.e.f. 01 .03. 1996 which is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Per contra, Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the commutation of pension of govemment employee is governed by the MP/CG Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules, 1996 ’). Under Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Rules, 1996, a deduction is to be‘made from the date of revised pension has been made applicable i.e. w.e.f March, 1996 as ' the petitioner retired from service on 29.02.1996. The petitioner has received commuted value of pension of Rs‘ 51,714/— on 23.04.1997 alongwith difference amount of gratuity and pension as pension. As the pension of the petitioner was revised in the year 1998, the petitioner further received a sum ofRs. 82,466/- on 11.02.1999. The pension of the petitioner was again revised in the year 2002 and the revised pension was flxed at Rs. 3748/-. The commuted value of pension came to Rs. 1,56,774/— and the and the difference amount of Rs. 22,557/— was paid to the petitioner on 02.05.2003. ‘ \ \ \ \ ,, D Rule 6 of the Rules 1996 provides for deduction in the aount ofpension from the date of receipt of the commuted value of pension or at the end of three months after issue of authority by the Audit Officer for payment of commuted Value ofpension, Whichever is earlier. Shri Bhatia further submits that the petitioner has received the second revised pension in the year 2002 and the difference of amount was paid on 02.05.2003, but the petitioner received the first commuted value of pension in the year 1997. Only the revised value of commuted amount of pension was granted subsequently. Thus, under the provisions 0f law, the deductions have to be made from the date of first receipt of the commuted value ofpension which initially was done in the'year 1997. Rule 5 and 6 ofthe Rules, 1996 reads as under: @ “5. Limit of commutation of pension — (l) A Government servant shall be entitled to continue for a lump sum payment, a fraction not exceeding one-third of his pension. (2) In an application for commutation in Form ‘A’ the applicant shall indicate the fraction of pension which he desires to commute and may either indicate the maximum of one thirdof pension or such lower amount as he may desire to commute. (3) If the fraction of the pension to be commuted results in a , fraction of a rupee such fraction of rupee shall be ignored for the purpose of commutation. (4) No commutation is permissible after the age of 70 years. 6. Commutation of pension to become absolute — (l) The commutatiOn of pension shall become absolute in the case of the applicant referred to:- (i)’ In sub-rule (1‘) of Rule ll, on the date on which the application in Form ‘A’ is received by the Head of Office. (ii) In sub-rule (2) of Rule 11, on the date following the date of his retirement provided that the deduction in the amount of pension on account of commutation shall be operative from the date of receipt of the commuted value of pension or at the end of three months after issue of authority by the Audit Officer for the payment of commuted value ofpension, whatever is earlier. (2) In the case of an applicant (referred to in Rule 9 of the commuted value is paid in two ”stages. The reduction in the amount of pension shall be made from the respective date on the payment as laid down in proviso to sub—rule (1). (3) The date on which the payment of the commuted value of pension was made to the applicant shall be ‘entered in both halves of the pension payment order by the Treasury Officer.” \ @233 4 Rule 6(i)(2) of the Rules, 1996, provides that deduction in the amount of pension on account of commutation shall be operative from the date of receipt of the commuted value of pension or at the end of three months after issue of the order, which ever is earlier. 9. Admittedly, in the present case, the first commuted value of pension without any revision was made from 01.03.1996. The value of commuted revised pension was paid to the petitioner on 2.5.2003. The dispute is with regard to commuted value of the revised pension wherein difference of amount was paid to the petitioner on 2.5.2003. Since the difference amount, on the basis of commuted value of revised pension was paid on 2.5.2003, there cannot be deduction from 1.3.1996. The provisions of law is very clear and does not admit of any other interpretation. 10. Thus, for the reasons aforestated, the impugned order dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure P/3) is quashed. The deduction in the amount of pension on account of commutation of revised value of pension would be payable either from the date of receipt of the Commuted value of revised pension or at the end of three months after issue of authority by the Audit Officer for the payment of commuted value ofpension, whichever is earlier. 11. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. ‘ Sdl— sau'sh K. Asnihmi’ Judge . L Amit an a. mun.-uw » r _ , a ;