Emoluments

2023 PLC(CS) 563 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS)EmolumentsCalculation of emoluments on basis of "Last basic pay" after availing VSS

Documentary evidence (Last Pay Certificate and Initial Pay Slip) showed basic pay of appellant as Rs. 8070/- , however during his cross-examination before the Tribunal below, he inadvertently mentioned his basic salary as Rs. 7,605

Held, that if a person had or had been bestowed some legal right and he omitted to claim such legal right through oral assertion but the best documentary evidence of the case was found in his favour then the documentary evidence should be given credence

In the present case the inadvertent statement of the appellant qua his basic pay had no force and could not be used to deprive him of his valuable rights

Supreme Court directed the respondent-department to recalculate the monthly pension and the amount of outstanding house building advance of the appellant in the light of his basic salary mentioned in the documentary evidence i.e. Rs. 8070/- and pay the difference to the appellant within a period of one month

Appeal was allowed.

2021 SCMR 1284 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS)EmolumentsCalculation of emoluments on basis of "Last basic pay" after availing VSS

Documentary evidence (Last Pay Certificate and Initial Pay Slip) showed basic pay of appellant as Rs. 8070/- , however during his cross-examination before the Tribunal below, he inadvertently mentioned his basic salary as Rs. 7,605

Held, that if a person had or had been bestowed some legal right and he omitted to claim such legal right through oral assertion but the best documentary evidence of the case was found in his favour then the documentary evidence should be given credence

In the present case the inadvertent statement of the appellant qua his basic pay had no force and could not be used to deprive him of his valuable rights

Supreme Court directed the respondent-department to recalculate the monthly pension and the amount of outstanding house building advance of the appellant in the light of his basic salary mentioned in the documentary evidence i.e. Rs. 8070/- and pay the difference to the appellant within a period of one month

Appeal was allowed.

2014 SCMR 570 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Civil Service Regulations, Regln. 486EmolumentsBasis of pension

Respondents were retired civil servants who claimed payment of pension by addition of Special Additional Allowance, Special Relief Allowance and Additional Ad hoc Relief

Service Tribunal allowed appeals filed by retired civil servants and directed to include the same in calculation of their pensionary benefits

Validity

Term "emoluments" was to be calculated upon what the officer was receiving immediately before his retirement i.e. Basic Pay, Senior Post Allowance, Special Pay of all types and nature, Personal Pay, Technical Pay, Indexed Pay, Increments accrued during Leave Preparatory to Retirement and any other emoluments which might be specially classed as pay

Term "emoluments" as defined by Civil Service Regulations 486, apparently seemed to be all inclusive and though word "include" had been used but it did not seem to enlarge the scope from the one that was enumerated in its items (a) to (h)

Term "include" as appearing in Civil Service Regulations 486, did not include alien and extraneous elements for calculation of emoluments rather it would confine itself to the incidence attached to or connected with enumerated items (a) to (h)

Service Tribunal in its judgment, omitted to consider Civil Service Regulations 486, although Federal Government in its para-wise comments had specifically raised defence that Civil Service Regulations 486 did not include allowances claimed by retired civil servants in emoluments reckonable towards calculation of pension

In Office Memorandums by which the allowances were granted, it was specifically noted that such allowances would not be treated as part of emoluments for the purpose of calculation of pension/gratuity and recovery of house rent

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was not in accordance with law and suffered from legal infirmity and perversity and, therefore, was not sustainable

Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Appeal was allowed.

2014 PLC(CS) 831 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Civil Service Regulations, Regln. 486EmolumentsBasis of pension

Respondents were retired civil servants who claimed payment of pension by addition of Special Additional Allowance, Special Relief Allowance and Additional Ad hoc Relief

Service Tribunal allowed appeals filed by retired civil servants and directed to include the same in calculation of their pensionary benefits

Validity

Term "emoluments" was to be calculated upon what the officer was receiving immediately before his retirement i.e. Basic Pay, Senior Post Allowance, Special Pay of all types and nature, Personal Pay, Technical Pay, Indexed Pay, Increments accrued during Leave Preparatory to Retirement and any other emoluments which might be specially classed as pay

Term "emoluments" as defined by Civil Service Regulations, Regln. 486, apparently seemed to be all inclusive and though word "include" had been used but it did not seem to enlarge the scope from the one that was enumerated in its items (a) to (h)

Term "include" as appearing in Civil Service Regulations, Regln.486, did not include alien and extraneous elements for calculation of emoluments rather it would confine itself to the incidence attached to or connected with enumerated items (a) to (h)

Service Tribunal in its judgment, omitted to consider Civil Service Regulations, Regln.486, although Federal Government in its para-wise comments had specifically raised defence that Civil Service Regulations, Regln.486 did not include allowances claimed by retired civil servants in emoluments reckonable towards calculation of pension

In Office Memorandums by which the allowances were granted, it was specifically noted that such allowances would not be treated as part of emoluments for the purpose of calculation of pension/gratuity and recovery of house rent

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was not in accordance with law and suffered from legal infirmity and perversity and, therefore, was not sustainable

Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Appeal was allowed.