Mukut Das vs The Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

2025 INSC 1403 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.22297 of 2024)

Mukut Das …Appellant Versus The Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents With Civil Appeal No. 14560 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.330 of 2025)

ORDER

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The short controversy in the above appeals is as to

whether the appellants, who retired on 31.03.2016 are entitled

to the revision as brought in by the ‘Assam State Electricity

Board and its Successor Companies Revised Pay Rules, 2017’1.

Both the appellants were superannuated in March 2016, they Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2025.12.09 having reached the age of superannuation, 60 years, before the 14:46:05 IST Reason:

1

for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’ Page 1 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc. last day in March 2016. By virtue of Fundamental Rule 56(a),

their date of retirement from service is extended to the

afternoon of the last day of the month in which the employee

attains the age of 60 years; thus, both the appellants retired on

31.12.2016.

3. The learned Single Judge before whom the Writ Petition

was filed, looking at the Rules of 2017 and FR 56(a) held that the

Rules of 2017 applies to an employee who was in service on

31.03.2016, thus entitling both the appellants to the pay revision

benefits. The Division Bench in Writ appeal reversed the

finding, against which the appellants have approached this

Court.

4. We heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel

for the appellants, Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel and

Mr. Kaushik Choudhury learned counsel for the Respondents.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants

would contend that the Fundamental Rule specifically provided

for retirement to be extended to the last day of the month in

which an employee attains 60 years; in the present case to

31.03.2016 in which event, the appellants were in service as on

Page 2 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc. 31.03.2016. The Rules of 2017 specifically provided that the

revision applies to those in service as on 31.03.2016.

6. It is vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel for

the respondents that the pay revision rules specifically enabled

only those who were appointed and continued on or after

01.04.2016 to the revised pay structure. It is also pointed out

that the revised pension shall not be applicable to the persons

who had retired on or before 31.03.2016; as is clear from the

rule permitting fitment benefits to pensioners.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondents specifically referred to the decision of this Court

in K. J. George and Ors. v. Chief General Manager, Telecom,

BSNL & Anr.2, and a decision of the Delhi High Court in Union

of India and Ors. v. G.C. Yadav3, the Special Leave Petition

filed against which has been dismissed by an order dated

24.05.2024 in SLP (C) No.33558 of 2018.

8. We will first consider the decision placed before us in K.

J. George2. The Fifth Central Pay Commission by Clause 3.1

provided that revised pension will apply to Government

2 (2008) 14 SCC 699 3 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12191 Page 3 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc. servants who retired/died in harness on or after 01.01.1996.

The respondents therein who attained the age of

superannuation on 16.12.1995 and 03.12.1995 respectively, by

virtue of the provision of FR 56 were made to retire only with

effect from the afternoon of 31.12.1996. They claimed that they

are entitled to the revised pay which came into effect from

01.01.1996 which claim stood declined by this Court.

9. The High Court of Delhi in G.C. Yadav3 was concerned

with the Seventh Central Pay Commission implemented on

04.08.2016 in respect of pensioners, retiring on or after

01.01.2016; the date of effect. The respondents-employees

therein attained the age of retirement on 31.12.2015. Hence,

there is no applicability of FR 56 which provided extension of

retirement to the last day of the month only in cases where the

date of retirement is on a day prior to 31st day of the very same

month. In G.C. Yadav3, the date of birth of the respondent was

01.01.1956 in which event he attained the age of retirement on

31.12.2015, on which date he superannuated. Since he retired

on 31.12.2015, that disabled him from claiming the benefit of

revision which was made effective from 01.01.2016. There is a

clear distinction herein, insofar as the date of retirement of the

Page 4 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc. appellants was the date on which the revision was made

effective.

10. True, in K. J. George2, this Court held that even if the

benefit of FR 56(a) is conferred on an employee, legally he

retires on the date when he attains the age of 60 years and the

continuance after the last day of the month is only for the

purpose of pay and allowances. We are unable to agree with

the said finding, especially in the context of FR 56(a) not

providing any such rigour of continuance only for the purpose

of pay and allowance. FR 56(a) is extracted herein: -

“F.R. 56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years:

Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years.”

11. It is based on the proviso to the FR that G.C. Yadav3

declined the revision since therein the date of birth fell on the

1st day of the month and hence the employee retired on the last

day of the preceding month.

Page 5 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.

12. Normally, we would have referred the matter to a Larger

Bench since K. J. George2 is a decision of a Coordinate Bench.

But it is pertinent that the FR did not provide for a legal

retirement and a severance on the last day, for purposes of pay

and allowances alone. Moreover the decision failed to notice a

three Judge Bench decision, which we shall refer to, a little

later.

13. Both, K. J. George2 and G.C. Yadav3 are cases where the

respondent employees retired one day prior to the date of pay

revision coming into effect. Insofar as the findings in K. J.

George2 regarding the extension being only for the purpose of

pay and allowances, we are not referring the matter to a Larger

Bench since we are supported by a Three Judge Bench decision

in S. Benerjee v. Union of India and Others4, wherein a Deputy

Registrar was allowed to retire from the Registry of this Court,

on 01.01.1986. The petitioner therein sought for the benefit of

the Fourth Central Pay Commission which provided for treating

the entire dearness allowance drawn by an employee up to

31.12.1985 as pay for pensionary benefits, in the case of

employees who retired during the period 01.01.1986 to

4 1989 Supp 2 SCC 486 Page 6 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc. 30.09.1986. This Court reckoned Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 providing for the date of

retirement of a Government employee. Reference was also

made to the proviso to Rule 5(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,

1972, which deemed the date of retirement to be a non-working

day in the case of a government servant who retires

prematurely/voluntarily. Despite the proviso deeming the date

of voluntary retirement to be not a working day, the three Judge

Bench allowed the benefit that accrued on that date to all

employees in service, to the appellant who retired voluntarily.

14. The proviso to Rule 5(2) is not applicable to the appellants

herein since they had retired on attaining the age of

superannuation, in the month of March 2016, extended to

31.03.2016 by virtue of FR 56(a). Rule 5(2) of the CCS (Pension)

Rules is squarely applicable which provides as follows: -

5(2) 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.

Hence the day on which the appellants retired they were in

service.

Page 7 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.

15. In the present case, on the above principles we looked at

the Rules of 2017, which is the subject matter of controversy,

which is extracted hereunder: -

Application of the Revised Pay

(a) All employees who were in services on 31st March 2016 or who may have been appointed on or after 1st April 2016 shall draw pay in revised pay structure (Pay Band with Grade Pay) applicable to the posts/grades which they have been holding or to which they may have been appointed as the case may be.

Fitment benefit/revision of pensioner/family pensioners.

(a) The revised basic pension/family pension on 01.04.2016 of the pensioners/ family pensioners who were drawing pension/ family pension on 31.03.2016 shall be fixed by multiplying the existing pension/ family pension by a factor of 2.48 and the amount so computed shall be rounded-of to the next multiple of Rs 10/-. The basic pension for all purposes will be w.e.f. 01.04.2016.

(b) The revised basic pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre revised pay scale/pay band from which the pensioner had retired. This is applicable to those pensioners who retired on or before 31.03.2016 and after completing 25/33 years of qualifying service as the case may be.

16. Quite distinct from the Central Pay Commission

recommendations, referred to in the cited decisions, the Rules

of 2017 specifically provided for the benefit of pay revision to

all employees who are in service on 31.03.2016 and those who

have been appointed on or after 01.04.2016. The appellants by Page 8 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc. virtue of the FR 56(a), though attained the age of retirement

prior to 31.03.2016, having attained the age only in March 2016

will have their date of superannuation extended to 31.03.2016.

The FR does not provide for such extension to be merely for the

purpose of pay and allowances nor can there be a deemed

legal termination of employer-employee relationship be found

on the date of attaining the age of 60 years. The rule of

superannuation is clear and unambiguous that any person who

attained the age of superannuation in a month will retire only

on the last day of that month. Further by virtue of Rule 5(2) of

the CCS (Pension) Rules, on 31.03.2016 the appellants were in

service, and they are entitled to the pay revision brought in by

the Rules of 2017. Rule 5(2) of the CCS Pension Rules as

extracted hereinabove ensures that the last day of retirement,

in normal superannuation, as distinguished from a premature

or voluntary retirement, is a working day for which the

employee is entitled to salary.

17. The contentions based on Rule 32 of the Pay Revision

Rules of 2017 is also fallacious. Sub-rule 1 specifically provides

that the pension of any pensioner who retired prior to

01.04.2016 shall be revised w.e.f. 01.04.2016. Sub-rule 1(a)

Page 9 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc. provides for computation of pension/family pension as on

31.03.2016 to those persons who were drawing the pension or

family pension as on 31.03.2016; which is not applicable to the

appellants since they were in service on 31.03.2016 and were

not drawing pension or family pension as on that date. Insofar

as sub-rule 1(b) is concerned, it only provides for a basic

pension not lower than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay

in the pay band and the grade pay, for those pensioners who

retired on or before 31.03.2016 and after completing 25/33

years of service. This is only an enabling, provision to ensure

a minimum pension to those who are not covered by the

revision, which cannot alter the date of effect of the pay revision

rules. It cannot be said that the appellants who were in service

on 31.03.2016 would not be entitled to the revised pay scales as

on 31.03.2016 by virtue of a provision enabling those who are

not entitled to the revision to a minimum basic pension. As we

noticed the Rules of 2017 are specific and those who are in

service on 31.03.2016 are to be granted the revision.

18. We set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the

High Court and restore that of the learned Single Judge. The

appellants shall be entitled to the pay revision as on 31.03.2016

Page 10 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc. and their pay for the month of March 2016 shall be determined

in the revised scales and such revised pay shall be reckoned

for computing the pension payable. The arrears of pay and

pension shall be paid within a period of six months, and the

revised pension shall commence from February 2026. The

arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6 % for each passed

year, if the above directions are not complied with and in the

event of interest liability arising for non-payment of arrears

within six months, as directed hereinabove, the respondent

shall pay the interest and would be entitled to recover the same

from the officers who caused the delay in such payment of

arrears.

19. The appeals are allowed.

20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…….……….……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

………….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

New Delhi December 04, 2025.

Page 11 of 11 Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025 etc.