UNION OF INDIA versus K. B. KHARE AND ORS.

UNION OF INDIA versus K. B. KHARE AND ORS.

Rules governing pension for Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal are exhaustive as per Rule 8 of the 1985 Rules; clubbing past service in State Judicial Service with CAT service for consolidated pension is not envisaged. Appointment in CAT is not re-employment. Rule 16 as residuary provision is not applicable where clear rules exist. High Court's judgment permitting clubbing is erroneous and set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Union of India; Respondent 1: K.B. Khare; Respondent 2: S.K. Agnihotri
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 September 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Pension, Central Administrative Tribunal, Death Cum Retirement Benefits, Re Employment, Interpretation of Pension Provisions
Service Law Pension Central Administrative Tribunal Death Cum Retirement Benefits Re Employment Interpretation of Pension Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India

Appellant

K.B. Khare

Respondent 1

S.K. Agnihotri

Respondent 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent could combine service in State Judicial Service and Central Administrative Tribunal for consolidated pension
  2. 2 Applicability of Rule 16 as residuary provision
  3. 3 Whether appointment in Central Administrative Tribunal is re-employment for pension purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Rules governing pension for Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal are exhaustive as per Rule 8 of the 1985 Rules; clubbing past service in State Judicial Service with CAT service for consolidated pension is not envisaged. Appointment in CAT is not re-employment. Rule 16 as residuary provision is not applicable where clear rules exist. High Court's judgment permitting clubbing is erroneous and set aside.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside; no order for recovery of excess pension already paid; if higher pension not paid, appellant not required to pay the same; IA 4/94 dismissed; no order as to costs