RASHID MAHMOQD ANSARI, MEMBER- The petitioner has filed the MP No 1738/2004 for implementation of the FST's judgment dated 23.7.2004 in Appeal No. 946(R) CE/2003 in letter and spirit and set aside the order dated 17.9.2004 whereby an amount of Rs. 2128177/- has been determined as recoverable from the petitioner. The operative part of the judgment ibid reads as under.
"It is thus, obvious that the Respondent's impugned circular has no legal sanctity and appellant shall continue to be governed by the existing SLIC Pension Regulations which have already been duty approved by the Government. Furthermore, the revised pay structure and fringe benefits including pension can also be introduced. Respondents are, therefore, directed to recalculate the pensionary benefits of the Appellant as per provisions of State Rule Employees Pension Regulation, 1986." -
2. In follow up the respondent-corporation advised the petitioner vide letter dated 17.9.2004 that in consequence of the Tribunal's judgment {ibid) pay and allowances had been calculated in terms of State Life Employees (Pension) Regulation 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Pension Regulations) on the basis of the old scales of 1998 and the excess payment of salary and allowances in terms of the revised pay scales of 2001 from 1.1.2000 to 18.4.2003 amounted to Rs.
212877/- which had become recoverable.
3. According to the revised pay structure for officers of the respondent-corporation as announced vide circular dated 12.2.2001. Pensioner benefits were required to be calculated on the basis of pay as on 31.12.1999 whereas under the 1986 Pension Regulations, pension was required to be calculated on the basis of last pay or emoluments drawn by an employee.
4. Incidentally the revised pay scales of 2001 had been introduced by the respondent-corporation without the mandatory approval of the Federal Government which had rendered the revised pay scales devoid of legal sanctity. Since the Tribunal had decided vide judgment dated 23.7.2004 that the petitioner shall continue to be governed by the 1986 Pension Regulations instead of the Pension Regulations pertaining to revised pay structure of 2001, the respondent-corporation maintains that for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits of the petitioner, the revised pay scales of 2001 had ceased to remain in the field with the resuIt that the old pay scales of 1998 had become relevant5. We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and also perused the record.
6. It goes without saying that the judgment of the Tribunal his to be implemented in letter and spirit.
The spirit of the judgment was that by directing the respondent- corporation to compute the pensionary benefits under the 1986 Pension Regulation, the petitioner would get enhanced pensionary benefits since the same were to be based on the last pay drawn. However, the respondent-corporation has sprung a surprise, as it were by maintaining that the last pay drawn with have to computed on the basis of the pay scales of 1998 instead of pay scales of 2001. If this were so, the respondent-corporation should have referred to this issue in their parawise comments on the main appeal or when the appeal was heard. Now at this belated stage no new issue can be raised by the respondent-corporation. The revised pay structure and fringe benefits had been introduced by the respondent-corporation vide letter dated 12.2.2001 and the petitioner has drawn his salary and other benefits on the basis of the new pay scale up to the date of his superannuation on 18.4.2003. It was a legitimate expectation of the petitioner that in the light of the Tribunal's Judgment dated 23.7.2004 his pensionary benefits would be computed on the basis of last pay actually drawn by him rather than a notional pay that he would have drawn under the pay scales of 1998. Since the respondent-corporation had at no stage raised the issue of applicability of the pay scales of 1998 when the main appeal was heard by the Tribunal, they have forfeited the right of applying the pay scales of 1998 now to determine the -pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
Accordingly the contention of the respondents that the petitioner can not be allowed to accept the revised pay scales of 2001 only in part and not as whole is not valid, In any case the respondents did not exercise the option of appealing against the FST judgment with the resuIt that it has now attained finality.
7. The foregoing in view, we set aside the orders 2006 dated 17.9.2004 and direct the respondent- corporation to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner after calculating the same in terms of the 1986. Pension Regulations on the basis of the last pay actually drawn by him. MP is disposed of in these terms.
8. No order as to costs. Parties be informed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.