Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anthony C. Monteiro, was a government servant in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Goa, as a Junior Stenographer. He went on deputation to Goa Meat Complex as Senior Stenographer on 08.06.1977 and was permanently absorbed there vide Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1983 with effect from 01.06.1981. He was held entitled to retirement benefits as Junior Stenographer for his service from 01.02.1965 to 31.05.1981. The petitioner approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa by way of Writ Petition No. 19 of 2001, seeking minimum pension of Rs.375 under Clause 7.1 read with Clause 10(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 16.04.1987, which revised pensions for pre-1986 pensioners. The respondents, the Government of Goa and others, contended that the petitioner had already been paid all pension benefits as admissible under the Rules and that he was not entitled to the minimum pension because he had drawn one-time lump sum terminal benefits equal to 100% of his pension, which, according to Clause 10(a), excluded him from the benefit of the Office Memorandum. The court examined the language of Clause 7.1, which provides that where consolidated pension works out to less than Rs.375, it shall be stepped up to Rs.375, and Clause 10(a), which states that in cases where government servants have drawn one-time lump sum terminal benefits equal to 100% of their pensions, their cases will not be covered by these Orders. The court noted that the petitioner continued to draw pension separately from the government after absorption, as he had not commuted his entire pension. The court held that the exclusion in Clause 10(a) applies only to those who have drawn lump sum terminal benefits equal to 100% of their pension and do not draw any pension thereafter. Since the petitioner was drawing pension separately, he was entitled to the minimum pension of Rs.375. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the minimum pension of Rs.375 per month with effect from 01.01.1986, along with arrears and interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until payment.
Headnote
A) Pension Law - Minimum Pension - Pre-1986 Pensioners - Clause 7.1 read with Clause 10(a) of Office Memorandum dated 16.04.1987 - Petitioner, a government servant absorbed in a public sector undertaking, drew lump sum terminal benefits equal to 100% of pension - Respondents denied minimum pension of Rs.375 contending that Clause 10(a) excludes such cases - Court held that Clause 10(a) only excludes cases where pension is not separately drawn; since petitioner continued to draw pension separately, he is entitled to minimum pension - Held that the exclusion in Clause 10(a) applies only to those who have commuted 100% pension and do not draw any pension, not to those who draw pension separately (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a pre-1986 pensioner who was absorbed in a public sector undertaking and drew lump sum terminal benefits, is entitled to minimum pension of Rs.375 under Clause 7.1 read with Clause 10(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 16.04.1987.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to pay petitioner minimum pension of Rs.375 per month with effect from 01.01.1986, along with arrears and interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until payment.
Law Points
- Minimum pension
- Pre-1986 pensioners
- Absorption in public sector undertaking
- Office Memorandum dated 16.04.1987
- Clause 7.1
- Clause 10(a)
- Pension revision
- Lump sum terminal benefits
