Holding

For pension purposes, 'emolument' comprises only pay and dearness pay, excluding dearness and special allowances; consequently, the ceiling on the special additional pension is invalid and must be replaced by the uncapped amounts.

Summary

The deceased N.D. Pamboodripad, a retired Kerala High Court Judge, challenged the pension fixed by the Kerala Government, arguing that his "emolument" for pension calculation should include dearness and special allowances (Rs 4,237 per month) and that the ceiling on the special additional pension under Part III of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 was unconstitutional. The State contended that "emolument" under Rule 62 of the Kerala Service Rules meant only basic pay and dearness pay, excluding other allowances, and that the ceiling was valid. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "includes" in Rule 62, held that the rule was intended to comprise only pay and dearness pay, thereby fixing the emolument at Rs 3,500 per month and confirming the ordinary pension of Rs 29,220 per annum. It also held that the ceiling on the special additional pension violated Article 14 and should be disregarded, fixing the special additional pension at Rs 5,600 per annum from 1 Jan 1986 and Rs 12,800 per annum from 1 Nov 1986, making the total pension Rs 34,820 and Rs 42,020 respectively. The Court ordered recalculation of the pension and allowed the appeals in part.

Issues considered

Whether the term 'emolument' under Rule 62 of the Kerala Service Rules includes dearness allowance and special allowance for pension calculation.
Whether the ceiling on the special additional pension under Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 is constitutionally valid.
How the ordinary pension of a retired High Court Judge should be calculated based on the defined 'emolument'.

Legislation cited

High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954s. 15(1)(b)
Kerala Public Services Act, 1968s. 2(1)
Kerala Service Ruless. Rule 12(23), s. Rule 62

Subjects

pensionemolumentHigh Court Judges (Conditions of Service) ActKerala Service Rulesceilingconstitutional validitystatutory interpretationdearness allowancespecial allowance

Judgment

~·· t
ND P NAMBOODRIPAD (DEAD) BY LRS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 8, 2007

[H.K. SEMA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.) B

t Service Law:

High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954; S. l 5(1)(b), Part
111 of First Schedule/Kera/a Service Rules; Rule 12(23) and 62: C
Pension-Appellant retired as Judge of High Court in 1980-lssuance
of Circular by Government of India rationalizing pension structure of Judges
w.e.f 1.1.1986-Fixation of pension on revision-Challenged on the ground
that ordinary pension not calculated by taking into consideration emoluments
drawn at the time of retirement and additional pension fIXed by following the
ceiling limit in terms of provisions under Part Ill of First Schedule-Held:
Dearness allowance and Special allowance were not specially classed as
pay by State Government under the provisions of Rule 62-Jf pay, dearness
allowance and other allowances already included in emoluments with
reference to its general/normal meaning, there was no reason to again
specify them in Rule 62-Ru/e 62 intended to clarify that only pay and
dearness pay would be considered as emoluments for the purpose ofcalculating
pension-Amendments made in provisions of 1968 Act clarify that emoluments
for the purpose of calculating pension comprise of only pay and dearness
pay-Hence, the emoluments of the appellant rightly taken as Rs.35001- p.m.
for the purpose of calculating pension- Since neither the ceiling of
Rs.8,0001- introduced by the State Government in terms of the Circular issued
by the Government of India effective from 1. JI .1986 nor the earlier ceiling
of Rs.3,5001- justified/valid, the additional pension could appropriately be
fIXed at Rs.5,6001- per annum w.e.f 1.1.1986 and Rs.12,8001- per annum w.e.f
1.11.1986 in terms of instructions/Rules-Kerala Services Act, 1968.

Words and Phrases:

'Emoluments' and 'pay'-Meaning of in the context offIXation ofpension
of a retired Judge in terms of Kera/a Service Rules.
769
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A Appellant entered the Kerala Higher Judicial Service as a directly
recruited District & Sessions Judge and was later elevated as a Judge of the ~ .
Kerala High Court. He retired on 31.7.1980. The pension payable to High
Court Judges is governed by Chapter III of the High Court Judges (Conditions
of Service) Act, 1954. The appellant was governed by Part Ill of the First
Schedule to the Act as he did not opt for pension under Part I of that Schedule
B of the Act The Government oflndia, vide Circular dated 18.12.1987, notified
the Accountant Generals of all States that the ordinary pension admissible to
High Court Judges under Para 2(a) of Part Ill of the First Schedule to the
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 may be revised with effect t
from 1.1.1986. It permitted the respective State Governments to either adopt
c the said 0.M. dated 16.4.1987 or issue independent orders on similar lines,
subject to the maximum ceiling as stipulated in Schedule Ill to the Act. By
order dated 19.10.1989, the Government ofKerala directed that the pension
of the Judges of the High Court, who have been promoted from the State Higher
Judicial Service and falling under Part III of the First Schedule to the Act,
shall be revised with effect from 1.1.1986 in accordance with the rates referred
D to in the O.M. dated 16.4.1987 issued by the Government of India. Accordingly,
the pension of the appellant was revised.

The appellant challenged the pension so fixed on the ground that the ~
ordinary pension ought to have been calculated, by taking the emoluments
drawn at the time of retirement and that the additional pension under para
E
2(b) of Part III of First Schedule to the Act may be fixed without reference to
any ceiling. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition holding
that the appellant was entitled to a pension of Rs.35,100/- per annum from
1.1.1986 and Rs.47,900/- per annum from 1.11.1986. Union oflndia challenged
the order of the Single Judge of the High Court, which was allowed by the
F High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the
Single Judge and affirmed the pension as fixed. A review petition filed by the
appellant was rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court In the appeal
I< ...._
filed before this Court, the Court vide judgment dated 16.4.2004 held that
having regard to Rule 62, 'emolument' for calculating pension, would include
dearness allowance and other special allowances; that the ordinary pension of
G appellant should be calculated by taking the emoluments drawn at the time of
retirement, viz. Rs.4237 /-as monthly emoluments instead of Rs.3,500/-; that
the special additional pension should be calculated under Clause 2(b) of Part >:
Ill of the First Schedule to the Act without any ceiling, in view of the decision
of this Court in the ca~e of M.L. Jain (III). The respondents were directed to
H recalculate the pension within three months and pay the arrears to the
ND PNAMBOODRIPAD(DEAD) BY LRS. v. U.0.1. 771
-} appellant. Aggrieved by the first part of the judgment relating to calculation A
of ordinary pension based on the interpretation of Rule 62, the State of Kera la
filed a review petition. The review petition was allowed by order dated 1.4.2005,
the judgment dated 16.4.2004 was recalled and the civil appeals were restored
for fresh hearing.

Appellant contended that the word "includes" when used in the definition B
along with a word or phrase in a Statute, it enlarges the meaning of the word
or phrase; that 'emolument' in its natural and ordinary sense, refers to the
pay and all allowances; and that the inclusive definition in Rule 62 is intended
to further expand it by specifically including 'dearness pay'; that what is
already included in the general meaning of the word 'emolument', that is
dearness allowance and special allowances in addition to basic pay, could not
c
be excluded because of the addition of some other item like 'dearness pay',
therefore, 'emolument' for the purpose of pension, consists of basic pay,
dearness allowance, other allowances and dearness pay.

The State contended that the term 'emolument' used in Rule 62 of Part D
III of Kerala Services Rules, included only basic pay and dearness pay, if any,

- ~ and did not include dearness allowance or any other allowances; that as the
appellant was not receiving any dearness pay, his last drawn basic pay of
Rs.3500/- per month alone constituted the 'emolument' for calculating the
pension.
E
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Dearness allowance and special allowance were not specially
classed as 'pay' by the State Government under Rule 12(23) of the Kera la
Service Rules. Therefore dearness allowance and special allowances, do not
form part of pay. [Para 14) [779-D-E) F
"'
1.2. The word 'emolument' no doubt is a wider term than basic pay. It
generally refers to the salary or profits from employment or office. But the
word 'emolument' is not used in the general sense in the service Rules
relating to pension, where it is defined for purposes of pension. In fact, all
G
rules governing pension, define the word 'emolument' by giving a special or
_,
specific meaning, for purposes of pension calculation. Where a word is
defined, there can be no reference or reliance on any general meaning. To
bring in 'generality' instead of 'specificity' in defining the term 'emolument'
will defeat the very purpose of defining 'emolument' for purposes of pension.
Therefore, contextually the definition of'emolument' should be specific and H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 3 S.C.R.

A not 'expansive' or general. !Para 141 (779-D-FI { -
1.3. The word 'includes' has different meanings in different contexts.
It is no doubt true that generally when the word 'include' is used in a definition
clause, it is used as a word of enlargement, that is to make the definition
extensive and not restrictive. But the word 'includes' is also used to connote
B a specific meaning, that is, as 'means and includes' or 'comprises' or 'consists
or. The word 'includes' can be used in interpretation clauses either generally
in order to enlarge the meaning of any word or phrase occurring in the body
ofa Statute, or in the normal standard sense, to mean 'comprises' or 'consists
or or 'means and includes', depending on the context. (Paras 15 and 16]
c The Municipal Council, Raipur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1970)
SC 1923; South Gujarat Roofing Tile Manufacturers Association v. State of
Gujarat, AIR (1977) SC 90; Hindustan Aluminium Corporation v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1981) SC 1649 and Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless
General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1987] 1 SCC 424, referred to.
D
Webster's Dictionary; ///us/rated Oxford Dictionary and Collins
Dictionary of English Language, referred to.
I- .....
1.4. If the words 'and includes' were intended to rope in certain items
which would not be part of the meaning, but for the definition, then Rule 62
E would have specified only 'dearness pay' as the item to be included but not
'pay'. If pay, dearness allowance and other allowances were already included
in 'emolument' with reference to its general or normal meaning, as contended
by appellant, there was no reason to specifically again include 'pay' in Rule
62. Inclusion of 'pay' and 'dearness pay' and non-inclusion of 'dearness
allowance or other allowances' in the definition of 'emolument' is significant.
F The definition in Rule 62 is intended to clarify that only pay and dearness )<
pay would be considered as 'emolument' for purposes of calculating pension.
The words 'and includes' have been used in Rule 62, as meaning 'comprises'
or 'consists or. (Paras 17( (780-E-H]

G 1.5. The explanatory notes to the two amendments to Rule 62 of Part III
of the Kerala Service Rules, were made during the pendency of this appeal.
The Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 clarify that the State Government
decided to amend the Service Rules to give more clarity and to avoid ambiguity
in calculating pension and the term 'emolument' for the purpose of calculation
of pension will comprise of only pay and dearness pay. The amendments merely
H reinforce the view as held above. Hence, the contention of the State Government
ND PNAMBOODRIPAD (DEAD) BY LRS. v. U.0.1. [RAYEENDRAN . .1.] 773

~· ) that Rule 62 does not enable the addition of dearness allowance and special A
allowance to the pay for purposes of pension is accepted. The 'emolument' of
the appellant was rightly taken as Rs.3500/- per month. No error is found in
calculation of the consolidated ordinary pension at Rs.29,220/-.
[Paras 18 and 1911781-C-EI

2. Neither the ceiling of Rs. 8,000/- as introduced with effect from B
I. tl.1986, nor the earlier ceiling of Rs.3500/- is valid. As a consequence,
the special additional pension should be taken as Rs.5,600/- per annum (that
is Rs.700x8) instead of Rs.3500/- from 1.1.1986 and Rs.12,800/- per annum
(that is Rs.1600x8) instead of Rs.8,000/- from 1.11.1986. The pension due
should be recalculated and settled accordingly. IParas 20 and 221 C
[781-F-G; 782-B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2327-2328 of
1999.

From the Final Judgments and Orders dated I 0.7.1997 and 10.11.1997 of D
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 804 of 1997 and R.P. No.
299 of 1997 respectively.

T.L.V. Iyer, Subramonium Prasad and Gopalakrishnan R for the Appellants.

R. Mohan, ASG, T.S. Doabia, Kiran Bhardwaj, P. Parmeswaran, B. Krishna E
Prasad and G. Prakash for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RA VEENDRAN, J. I. These appeals by special leave are filed against
the judgment dated 10.7.1997 in Writ Appeal No.804 of 1992 and the order F
dated 10.11.1997 in Review Petition No.299/1997 passed by a Division Bench
of the Kerala High Court.

2. The appellant entered the Kerala Higher Judicial Service as a directly
recruited District & Sessions Judge and was later elevated as a Judge of the
Kerala High Court in the year 1972. He retired on 31. 7.1980 with 23 years of G
pensionable service which included 8 years of service as a Judge of the High
Court. At the time of his retirement, the appellant was in receipt of a total
emolument of Rs.4,237/- comprising Basic Pay of Rs.3,500/-, Dearness
Allowance of Rs.437/- and Special Allowance of Rs.300/-.

3. The pension payable to High Court Judges is governed by Chapter H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A III of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (for short 'the -{ ~
Act'). Clause (b) of sub-section (I) of section 15 provides that every Judge
who was not a member of the Indian Civil Service but has held any other
pensionable post under the Union or a State, shall, on his retirement, be paid
a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part lII of the First
Schedule. The proviso thereto and sub-section (2) require such Judge to
B exercise certain options. The appellant was governed by Part III of the First
Schedule to the Act as he did not opt for pension under Part I of that
Schedule. Part III of the First Schedule is extracted below :

"!. The provisions of this Part apply to a Judge who has held any
pensionable post under the Union or a State (but is not a member of
c the Indian Civil Service) and who has not elected to receive the
pension payable under Part I.

2. The pension payable to such a Judge shall be -
(a) the pension to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules
D of his service if he had not been appointed a Judge, his service
as a Judge being treated as service therein for the purpose of
calculating that pension; and
(b) a special additional pension of Rs.1,600 per annum in respect
of each completed year of service for pension but in no case
E such additional pension together with the additional or special
pension, if any, to which he is entitled under the ordinary rules
of his service, shall exceed Rs.8,000 per annum.
Provided that the pension under clause (a) and the additional pension
under clause (b) together shall in no case exceed Rs.54,000 per annum
F in the case of a Chief Justice and Rs.48,000 per annum in the case of
any other Judge."

(Note: The special additional pension was Rs.700/- per annum and the
ceiling was Rs.3500/- per annum under clause (b) and these were substituted
as Rs.1600/- and Rs.8000/- respectively with effect from 1.11.1986)
G
The pension payable to the appellant was fixed at Rs.17,300/- per annum
(comprised of Rs.13,800/- as ordinary pension and Rs.3,500/- as special
additional pension).

4. The Government of India vide Official Memorandum dated 16.4.1987
H
ND PNAMBOODRIPAD (DEAD) BY LRS. v. U.O.L [RA YEEND RAN. J.] 775

rationalised the pension structure of the employees who retired prior to A
- >
1.1.1986. Clause 4.1 thereof provided for additional relief for existing pensioners.
Clause 5 provided for calculation of pension at 50% of average emoluments
in the case of pensioners whose pension was calculated under the slab
formula. Clause 6.1 related to consolidation of pension and provided that the
pension of existing pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 1.1.1986 B
by adding together (a) the existing pension, (b) the existing dearness relief
and (c) the additional benefits accruing from Paras 4 and 5 of the said 0. M.
dated 16.4.1987. The said 0. M. was not applicable to retired High Court
Judges whose pension was governed by separate rules/orders and stated that
necessary orders will be issued in their cases by the respective authorities.

5. By Circular dated 18.12.1987, the Government of India notified the
c
Accountant Generals of all States that the ordinary pension admissible to
High Court Judges under Para 2(a) of Part III of the First Schedule to the High
Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 may be revised with effect
from 1.1.1986 as in the case of the employees of the Central Government. It
permitted the respective State Governments to either adopt the said O.M. or D
issue independent orders on similar lines, subject to the maximum stipulated
in Schedule Ill to the Act. By order dated 19.10.1989, the Government of
Kerala directed that the pension of the Judges of the High Court, who have
been promoted from the State Higher Judicial Service and falling under Part
Ill of the First Schedule to the Act, shall be revised with effect from 1.1.1986 E
in accordance with the rates referred to in the O.M. dated 16.4.1987 issued
by the Government of India.

6. By communication dated 26.10.1989, the office of the Accountant
General, Kerala, informed the Central Government (with copy endorsed to
appellant) that the pension of the appellant who had opted for Part III of the p
First Schedule to the Act, was revised and consolidated from 1.1.1986 and
I .11.1986 as follows :

(a) Pension (including additional pension) from 1.1.1986 : Rs.32, 720
p.a.
G
(b) Pension (including additional pension) from 1.11.1986: Rs.37,220
p.a.

The annexure to the said letter showed the calculation of pension as follows,
by treating the 'emolument' reckoned for pension as Rs.3,500/- per month and
qualifying service as 23 years : H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A Existing ordinary pension : Rs. 1150/- p.m. ~ ~

Revised ordinary pension (as per 50% formula): 3500 x 23
=Rs. 1342 p.m.
2 30.

Increase due to Revision : Rs. 192/- p.m. or Rs. 2304/- p.a.
B

"Consolidation of Pension as per O.M. dt. 16.4.1987

Amount Per Annum
c I. Existing ordinary pension (1150 x 12) Rs. 13,800/-

2 Part consolidated ordinary pension as
per Para 6.1 of O.M. dt. 16.4.87 Rs. 26,916/-
Additional relief as per para 6.l(A) in
D case of pre 3 J.3.85 retirees (vi de
Col.2 ofready reckoner) : (2243 x 12)

3. Increase due to recalculation at 50% of Pay Rs. 2,304/-

4. Total consolidated ordinary pension Rs. 29,220/-
E from 1.1.1986 (2 + 3)

5. Additional pension admissible from 1.1.1986 Rs. 3,500/-
(under para 2(b) of Schedule III to the Act)

F
6. Total pension admissible from 1.1.1986 (4 + 5) Rs. 32, 720/- /(

7. Additional pension admissible from l. I I .1986.1 Rs. 8,000/-
(under para 2(b) of Schedule III to the Act)

G 8. Total pension admissible from 1.11.86 (4 + 7) Rs. 37,220/-"

7. The appellant challenged the said fixation of pension in O.P. No.203/
1990. According to him the ordinary pension ought to have been calculated,
H by taking the emoluments drawn at the time of retirement (Rs.4237/- per
ND PNAMBOODRIPAD (DEAD) BY LRS. "· U.0.1. [RA VEENDRAN. J.) 777

~ ) month) instead of Rs.3500/-. He also contended that the additional pension A
under para 2(b) of Part Ill of First Schedule to the Act should be without
reference to any ceiling. A learned Single Judge allowed the said petition by
order dated 12.3.1992. He held that the appellant was entitled to a pension of
Rs.35,100/- per annum (that is Rs.2,925x 12) from 1.1.1986 and Rs.47,900/- per
annum (that is Rs.35,100 + Rs.12,800) from 1.11.1986.
B
8. Union of India challenged the said order of the learned Single Judge
in W.A. No.804 of 1992. The said appeal was allowed by judgment dated
10.7.1997. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge
and affirmed the pension as fixed under communication dated 26.10.1989
(extracted in para 6 above). The Division Bench purported to follow the C
decisions of this Court in ML. Jain(/) AIR (1985) SC 619 and ML. Jain(//)
AIR ( 1989) SC 669. It, however, observed that if any excess payment had been
made to the appellant on account of any wrong calculation, such excess need
not be refunded by the appellant. A review petition filed by the appellant was
rejected by the Division Bench by Order dated 10.11.1997.
D
9. The said judgment of the Division Bench and the rejection of the
review petition, are challenged in these appeals by special leave. The appellant
placed reliance on Rule 62 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, in suppor1
of his contention that average emolument of the appellant had to be taken
as Rs.4237/- instead of Rs.3500/- per month for calculating the ordinary
pension. In support of the contention that the special additional pension E
should be calculated without any ceiling, reliance was placed on M.L. Jain
(III) AIR (1991) SC 928.

10. This Court, by judgment dated 16.4.2004 reported in [2004] 5 SCC
259 held that having regard to Rule 62, 'emolument' for calculating pension, F
would include dearness allowance and other special allowances. This Court
further held that the ordinary pension of appellant should be calculated by
taking Rs.4237/- was the monthly emolument instead ofRs.3,500/-. This Court
also held that the special additional pension should be calculated under
Clause 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule to the Act without any ceiling,
in view of the decision in M.L. Jain (Ill). The respondents were directed to G
recalculate the pension within three months and pay the arrears to th~
appellant.

11. Aggrieved by the first part of the judgment relating to calculation
of ordinary pension based on the interpretation of Rule 62, the State of Kera la
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A filed a review petition in R.P.(C) Nos.1482-83/2004. The review petitions were ~ •
allowed by order dated 1.4.2005, the judgment dated 16.4.2004 was recalled
and the civil appeals were restored for fresh hearing. We have heard the
learned counsel on both issues.

Re : Ordinary Pension :
B
12. The State Government contended that the term 'emolument' (for
ascertaining the 'average emolument' which is the basis for determination of
ordinary pension) used in Rule 62 of Part Ill of Kerala Services Rules, included
only basic pay and dearness pay, if any, and did not include dearness
C allowance or any other allowances. It is further contended that as the appellant
was not receiving any dearness pay, his last drawn basic pay of Rs.3500/- per
month alone constituted the 'emolument' for calculating the pension of the
appellant.

13. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the Appellant that
D the word "includes" in Rule 62 is not equivalent to "means" or "only includes".
According to the Appellant, the word "includes" when used in the definition
of a word or phrase in a Statute, enlarges the meaning of the word or phrase
and such words or phrase must be construed as comprehending not only
such things as they signify according to their natural meaning, but also those
things which the interpretation or definition clause declares that they shall
E include (vide The Regional Director, ES! Corporation v. High Land Coffee
Works, AIR (l 992) SC 129). The Appellant contends that 'emolument' in its
natural and ordinary sense, refers to the pay and all allowances; and the
inclusive definition in Rule 62 is intended to further expand it by specifically
including 'dearness pay'. It is submitted that what is already included in the
F general meaning of the word 'emolument', that is dearness allowance and
special allowances in addition to basic pay, could not be excluded because
of the addition of some other item like 'dearness pay'. The Appellant, therefore,
contends that 'emolument' for purpose of pension, consists of basic pay,
dearness allowance, other allowances and dearness pay.

G 14. As the entire argument of the appellant is based on Rule 62, it is
useful to extract it. It reads thus :

"62. The term emolument when used in this part means the emolument
which the employee was receiving immediately before his retirement
and includes :
H
N DPNAMBOODRIPAD(DEAD) BY LRS. v. U.0.1. [RAVEENDRAN. J.] 779

(a) pay as defined in Rule 12(23) in Part I of these Rules and/or pay A
of the appointment under Rule 9 or Rule 31 of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Service Rules.

(b) the dearness pay the employee was actually in receipt of."

Rule 12(23) in Part I of the Kerala Service Rules defines 'pay' thus: B
"Pay :- Means the amount drawn monthly by an officer as -

(i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his
personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by
him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which is entitled C
by reason of his position in a cadre, and

(ii) personal pay and special pay, and

(iii) any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by
the Government.
D
The appellant was not receiving any Dearness Pay. It is also not in dispute
that dearness allowance and special allowance were not specially classed as
~ 'pay' by the State Government under Rule 12(23). Therefore dearness allowance
and special allowances, do not form part of pay. The word 'emolument' no
doubt is a wider term than basic pay. It generally refers to the salary or profits E
from employment or office. But the word 'emolument' is not used in the
general sense in the service Rules relating to pension. The word is defined
for purposes of pension. In fact, all rules governing pension, define the word
'emolument' by giving a special or specific meaning, for .purposes of pension
calculation. Where a word is defined, there can be no reference or reliance
on any general meaning. To bring in 'generality' instead of 'specificity' in F
defining the term 'emolument' will defeat the very purpose of defining
'emolument' for purposes of pension. Therefore, contextually the definition of
'emolument' should be specific and not 'expansive' or general.

15. The word 'includes' has different meanings in different contexts.
Standard Dictionaries assign more than one meaning to the word 'include'. G
Webster's Dictionary defines the word 'include' as synonymous with 'comprise'
or 'contain'. The 11/ustrated Oxford Dictionary defines the word 'include' as
: (i) comprise or reckon in as a part of a whole; (ii) treat or regard as so
included. The Collins Dictionary of English Language defines the word
'includes' as : (i) to have as contents or part of the contents; be made up of H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A or contain; (ii) to add as part of something else; put in as part of a set, group
or a category; (iii) to contain as a secondary or minor ingredient or element. ~ •
It is no doubt true that generally when the word 'include' is used in a
definition clause, it is used as a word of enlargement, that is to make the
definition extensive and not restrictive. But the word 'includes' is also used
B to connote a specific meaning, that is, as 'means and includes' or 'comprises'
or 'consists of.

16. Justice G. P. Singh in his treatise 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation',
(Tenth Edition, 2006), has noticed that where a word defined is declared to
'include' such and such, the definition is prima facie extensive, but the word
C 'include' when used while defining a word or expression, may also be construed
as equivalent to 'mean and include' in which event, it will afford an exhaustive
explanation of the meaning which for the purposes of the Act must invariably
be attached to the word or expression. [vide pages 173 and 175 referring to
and relying on the decisions of this Court in The Municipal Council, Raipur
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1970) SC 1923, South Gujarat Roofing Tile
D Manufacturers Association v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1977) SC 90, Hindustan
Aluminum Corporation v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1981) SC 1649, and
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.,
[ 1987] I SCC 424. It is, therefore, evident that the word 'includes' can be used
in interpretation clauses either generally in order to enlarge the meaning of
E any word or phrase occurring in the body of a Statute, or in the normal
standard sense, to mean 'comprises' or 'consists of or 'means and includes',
depending on the context.

17. If the words 'and includes' were intended to rope in certain items
which would not be part of the meaning, but for the definition, then Rule 62
F would have specified only 'dearness pay' as the item to be included but not
'pay'. If pay, dearness allowance and other allowances were already included
in 'emolument' with reference to its general or normal meaning, as contended
by appellant, there was no reason to specifically again include 'pay' in Rule
62. Inclusion of 'pay' and 'dearness pay' and non-inclusion of 'dearness
allowance or other allowances' in the definition of 'emolument' is significant.
G The definition in Rule 62 is intended to clarify that only pay and dearness
pay would be considered as 'emolument' for purposes of calculaiing pension.
The words 'and includes' have been used in Rule 62, as meaning 'comprises'
or 'consists of.

18. In the view we have taken, it is unnecessary to consider the following
H
ND PNAMBOODRIPAD (DEAD) BY LRS. v. U.0.1. [RA VEENDRAN, J.) 781

. two amendments to Rule 62 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, made A
_ l during the pendency of this appeal, in exercise of power conferred by section
2(1) of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 :

(i) Substitution of the words 'comprises only' in place of 'includes'
in Rule 62, by Kerala Service (Amendment) Rules 2004, with
effect from 1.3 .1997. B
(ii) Further substitution of the words 'comprises only the following'
in place of the words 'comprises only' in Rule 62 of Part III of
Kerala Service Rules by Kerala Service (Amendment) Rules,
2005, with effect from 14.11.1966.

The explanatory notes to the two amendments clarify that the Srate C
Government decided to amend the Service Rules to give more clarity and to
avoid ambiguity in calculating pension and the term 'emolument' for the
purpose of calculation of pension will comprise of only pay and dearness pay.
We have already held accordingly while interpreting unamended Rule 62. The
amendments merely reinforce our view. D
19. We, therefore, accept the contention of the State Government that
Rule 62 does not enable the addition of dearness allowance and special
allowance to the pay for purposes of pension. The 'emolument' of the appellant
was rightly taken as Rs.3500/- per month. We find no error in calculation of
the consolidated ordinary pension at Rs.29,220/-. E
Re : Special Additional Pension :

20. Special additional pension is provided for under Para 2(b) of Part III
offirst Schedule to the Act. In ML. Jain (Ill) -AIR 1991SC928, the ceiling
prescribed under para 2(b) was held to be unconstitutional being violative of F
Article 14 of Constitution of India. Therefore, neither the ceiling of
Rs. 8,000/- introduced with effect from 1.11.1986, nor the earlier ceiling of
Rs. 3500/- is valid. As a consequence, the special additional pension should
be taken as Rs. 5,600/- per annum (that is Rs.700x8) instead of Rs. 3500/- from
1.1.1986 and Rs. 12,800/- per annum (that is Rs. l 600x8) instead of
Rs.8,000/- from I .11.1986. In fact, neither Union of India, nor State Government G
dispute this position.

21. We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and hold as follows :

(i) that for the purpose of calculation of pension, the 'emolument'
received by the appellant was Rs.3,500/- per month and not H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R.

A Rs.4,237/-. Consequently, determination of consolidated ordinary
pension as Rs.29,220/- per annum from 1.1.1986 is upheld.
(ii) As the ceiling on the amount to be added under clause 2(b) of
Part Ill of First Schedule to the Act is invalid, the special
additional pension per annum would be Rs.5600/- per annum
B from 1.1.1986 and Rs.12,800/- per annum from 1.11.1986 in the
case of appellant.
(iii) Therefore, the total pension was Rs.34,820/- p.a. from 1.1.1986
and Rs. 42,020/- per annum from 1.11.1986.

C 22. We direct that the pension due be recalculated and settled accordingly.
If any excess payment has been made to the appellant, it shall not, however,
be recovered from the Legal Representatives of the deceased appellant. Parties
to bear their respective costs.

S.K.S. Appeals partly allowed.