Holding

A pensioner cannot receive two dearness reliefs simultaneously; the term "re‑employed" under Rule 21(ii) includes a first regular appointment, thus the respondent was not entitled to dearness relief on her family pension, but recovery of excess amounts paid before the rule’s commencement is not justified.

Summary

The respondent, a widow of a deceased railway employee, was receiving a family pension and was appointed on compassionate grounds as a railway employee, drawing both salary and family pension. She also received dearness relief on both the salary and the pension, which the railway authorities later deducted from the pension and sought to recover as excess. The Supreme Court examined Rule 21(ii) of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, interpreting "re‑employed" to include a first regular appointment, thereby barring a pensioner from receiving two dearness reliefs simultaneously. Relying on Union of India v. G. Vasudevan Pillay (1995) 2 SCC 32, the Court held that the respondent was not entitled to dearness relief on her family pension while employed. However, the Court found that recovering the excess dearness relief paid before the 1993 Rules came into force was not justified on legal or equitable grounds. Consequently, the order of the lower tribunal was set aside and the appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a widow appointed on compassionate grounds is "re‑employed" within the meaning of Rule 21(ii) of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
Whether a pensioner can draw dearness relief on both salary and family pension simultaneously.
Whether the railway authorities can recover the dearness relief amount that was paid prior to the enactment of the 1993 Rules.

Subjects

dearness relieffamily pensionre‑employmentcompassionate appointmentRailways Services (Pension) Rulesdouble allowancerecovery of excess pensioninterpretation of rule

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
REKHA MAJID

APRIL 6, 2000

B [V.N. KHARE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.]

Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

Rule 21-0bject and interpretation of

c Pensioner-Employee-Whether entitled to draw two dearness reliefs-
Ongm the salary and other on the f amity pension.

Railway employee-Death-Widow getting family pension-Subsequently
appo(nted on compassionate ground-Held widow is not entitled to draw two
dearness reliefs one on the salary and other on family pension.,--Held object of
D Rule 21 (ii) is that a pensionei- cannot enjoy two dearness reliefs simultaneously,
one on his pension and the other on his salary if he takes up re-employment-
171e expression "re-employed", if construed in the light ofthe object behind the
Rule and facts of this case, would also include first regular appointment in the
service-Denying the respondent dearness reliefs on her family pension was
E justified-However on the facts of the case recovery of excess pension paid to
the respondent is not justified on legal and equitable grounds.

Union of India & Ors. v. G. Vasudevan Pillay & Ors., [1995) 2 SCC
32, relied on.

p CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 679of1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4..95 of the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No. 968 of 1994.

Praveen Swarup, A.K. Sharma, Mrs. Rekha Pandey for the Appellants.

G R.K. Gupta, H. V.P. Sharma, R~jesh, M.K. Singh for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The sole question that aiises in this case is whether the respondent
herein is entitled to deamess relief on the family pension admissble to her even
H after getting appointment on compassionate ground in the railways.
1058
U.0.1. v. REKHA MAJID 1059
It is not disputed that the husband of the respondent was a railaway A
employee and he died in harness. It is not disputed that the family pension as
well as gratuity, provident fund and all other retirement benefits which were
admissible to the husband of the respondent were given to her. In addition to
that, the railways gave compassionate appointment to the respondent. The
respondent continued to draw salary as a railway employee as well as family
B
pension till 25th January, 1994 when it was discovered that the respondent was
not entitled to draw two dearness reliefs i.e. one on the salary and the other
on the family pension. Consequently, the appellants re-fixed the family
pension of the respondent after deducting dearness reliefs and issued orders
for recovery of dearness relief paid to her on family pension. Aggrieved by
this order the respondent filed an 0.A. before the Central Administrative c
Tribunal, Calcutta. The Tribunal was of the view that since the respondent was
not re-employed as contemplated under rule 2l(ii) of the Rules, she was
entitled to :lraw dearness relief on the salary as well as on the family pension.
Consequently, the O.A. was allowed. It is against this order the appellants are
in appeal before this Court.
D
Rule 21 of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 reads thus :

"Rule 21. Dearness relief on pe_nsion or family pension

(i)
E
(ii) If a pensioner is re-employed under the Central or a State
Government or a Corporation, Company, Body or Bank under
such Government in India or ab1Vad including permanent
absorption in such Corporation, Company, Body or Bank he
shall not be eligible to draw dearness TT!lief on pension or family
F
pension during the period of such re-employment. "

On the strength of the said rule it is contended by the counsel for the
appellants t1at the respondent having become employee of the railways, she
was not entitled to draw dearness relief on the family pension given to her.
Whereas the contention of the respondent's counsel is that it is not a case of G
re-employment but is a case of first regular employment in the railways and,
therefore, R1le 21 has no application in the present case and she is entitled
to draw dearness relief on the salary received by her as well as on the family
pension given to her.

It is well-known that dearness relief or allowance is being paid to H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 2 S.C.R.
A compensate the employees against rise in the price index. The question that
arises is, whether such an employee is entitled to draw two dearness reliefs
- one on the salary and the other on the family pension paid to him.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of Rule 2l(ii)
shows that the object behind framing the Rule is that a pension cannot enjoy
B two dearness reliefs simultaneously, one on his pension and the other on his
salary if he takes up re-employement, and, therefore, in such a situation to
deny dearness relief on the pension. It is not disputed that the respondent is
getting family pension and, therefore, she is a pensioner. That being the object
of the Rule, we have to give wider meaning to the expression "re-employed"
c which finds place in Rule 2l(ii) of the Rules. The expression "re-employed",
if construed in the light of the object behind the Rule and facts of this case,
would also include first regular appointment in the service.

In a case titled Union of India and Others v. G. Vasudevan Pi/lay and
Others, [1995) 2 SCC 32, wherein this Court held :
D
"In some of the cases, we are concerned with the denial of dearness
relief on family pension on employment of dependants like widows of
the ex-se111icemen. This decision has to be sustained in view of what
has been stated above regarding denial of. DR on pension on re-
employment inasmuch as the official documents referred on that point
E c
also mention above denial of DR on family pension on employment.
The rationale of this decision is getting of dearness allowance by the
dependants on their pay, which is drawn following employment,
because of which dearness relief on family pension can justily be
denied, as has been done."
F
The ratio of the decision in the case of Union of India & Others (supra) is,
that a pensioner cannot draw two dearness reliefs - one on the salary and the
other on pension. Once it is accepted that the respondent is a pensioner it is
immaterial whether such employment of the pensioner is first, regular or
temporary appointment or re-appointment In view of such a legal po~ition, the
G case of the respondent would fall within the four comers of -clause (ii) of Rule
21 of the said Rules. The respondent being a widow of an employee, who died
in harness, was given an employment in the railways on compassionate
grounds. Technically the respondent has come in employment in substitution
of her husband. Simultaneously, the railways have given her family pension
H and as such she is a pensioner. Therefore, in such circumstances Rule 21
U.0.1. v. REKHA MAJHI 1061
would be attracted and the case of the respondent being a pensioner would be A
governed by the said Rules. Consequently, the respondent was legally not
entitled to draw two dearness reliefs - one on the salary and the other on family
pension paid to her. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants are
legally justified in denying the respondent dearness reliefs on her family
pension.
B
Learned counsel for the respondent then urged that in any case tlie
appellants are not entitled to recover the dearness reliefs on the family pension
paid to the respondent between 26.1.87 to 25.1.94. Learned counsel for the
appellants has not drawn to our notice any circular or rule prior to 1993. Rule
21 finds place in the Rules which was published in 1993. It, therefore, appears c
that the dearness relief on the pension paid to the respondent was voluntarily
and after a conscious decision taken in respect thereof. And it was only after
the Rules 1993 was promulgated and orders for re-fixing her pension and
recovery of excess amount on family pension paid to her were issued.
Moreover, it is stated that the respondent who is a widow is the Ione bread
earner of the family and her financial condition is not such as to pay back the D
excess amount she has already drawn. Under such circumstances, we are of
the view that the recovery of excess pension paid to the respondent is not
justified on legal and equitable grounds.

r For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and order under appeal is set
E
aside. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.