DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTSversusB. RAVINDRAN AND ANR.

A                     DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS
                                    v.
                         B. RA VINDRAN AND ANR.

                             NOVEMBER 8, 1996

B                [S.C. AGRA WAL AND G.T. NANA VA Tl, JJ.]

         Service Law :

         Civil Services Regulations : Articles 521 and 526.

c         Ex-serviceman-Pay-Fixation of- Ex-serviceman retired before
    attaining age of 55 years and re-employed in civil service on or after 8-2-
    1983-Advance increments-Entitlement of-To alleviate hardship-Tests
    to determine-Held: Ignorable part ofpension to be ignored while totalling
    up pay plus pension-In order to determine whether pay fixed at minimum
D   ofpay scale ofpost concerned would cause undue hardship-Po/icy decision
    a/Central Government dated 25-11-1958 stood altered or modified to that
    extent by OMs of 1963, 1964, 1978 and 1983--0Ms of 1978 and 1983 did
    have a bindingforce-Contrary clarification dated 30-12-1985 rightly held
    by Central Administrative Tribunal to be illegal-Government of India
    OM dated 25-11-1958, OMs of 1963, 1964, 1978 and 1983 and DG P&T
E   Circular dated 30-12-1985--Government of India Act 1919, S.96-B(4)-
    Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 313.

          Civil Services Regulations-Nature of-Held: Statutory.

          Administrative Law :
F
         Subordinate legis/ation-Clarificatory instructions-Held: can neither
    supersede nor take away right itself under Regulations.

          The respondent who was an ex-serviceman retired before
G attaining the age of 55 years and was re-employed in civil service
  after 8-2-1983. On his re-employment respondent's pay was fixed at
  the minimum of the pay scale. The respondent was entitled to one
  advance increment for each completed year of service in the military
  in view of Government of India, Office Memorandum (O.M. dated
  25-11-1958 read with O.M. dated 8-2-1983). The respondent was
H denied this benefit on the ground that the respondent's case could
                                  638
                    DIRECTOR GEN. OF POSTS v. B. RAVINDRAN                639


        not be regarded as a case of hardship in view of the circular dated 30- A
        12-1985 issued by Director General, Posts and Telegraphs. The
        respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative
        Tribunal challenging the aforesaid clarification dated 30-12-1985. The
        Tribunal allowed the application and directed the appellants to ignore
        the ignorable part of the respondent's pension while deciding whether
        any undue hardship was caused to the respondent. Being aggrieved B
        the appellants preferred the present appeal.

              On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the concept of
        hardship was introduced by the Government in O.M. dated 25-11-
        1958 to ensure that there was no drop in the total package of pay and
        pension on re-employment; that it was never the intention of the C
•       Government to allow advance increments; that the circular dated
        30-12-1985 was clarificatory in nature as it made explicit what was
        implicit in O.M. dated 25-11-1958 and was not inconsistent with the
        statutory provision contained in the Civil Service Regulations, Articles
        521 and 526; and that the orders issued in 1963, 1964, 1978 and !983
        did not deal with the aspect of hardship and were not intended to D

    -   change the basic policy contained in the 1958 instructions.

             Dismissing the appeal, this· Court

              HELD: I.I. The original order for fixation of pay ofre-employed E
        pensioners was contained in Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 25-11-
        1958. Under that O.M. the initial pay of ex-serviceman pensioners was
        to be fixed at the minimum stage of the post concerned. If his pay thus
        fixed plus pension (including other benefits) exceeded his pre-retirement
        pay, necessary adjustment was to be made in the pay by reducing it
        below the minimum stage so as to ensure that the total pay including F
        pension was within the prescribed limits. If the initial pay plus the
        pension was found to be less, then it was to be regarded as a case of
        undue hardship and his pay was required to be fixed at higher stage
        by allowing one increment for each year of service which he had rendered
        before retirement in a post not lower than in which he was re-employed. G
        However, when it was noticed that this formula was not fair and just
        in cases of pensioners who retired at an early age that is before 55 years,
        the Government in relaxation of the policy contained in the 1958 order
        decided to grant some benefits to such re-employed pensioners and
        issued an order directing that civil pension up to Rs. 10/- per month
        and military pension up to Rs.15/- per month should be ignored in H
    640                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A fixing pay on re-employment. This relaxation was obviously in the
    nature of a modification of the earlier policy. The limits to be ignored
    were increased from time to time and by the O.M. dated 8-2-1983 the
    limit was raised to Rs. 250 in case of service officers and in case of
    personnel below Commissioned Officer's ranks the entire pensionery
    benefits were to be ignored. Though in the beginning, according to the
B   original policy contained in the 1958 order, the entire pension was to
    be added to the initial pay to find out whether it gave unintended
    advantage or caused undue hardship to the re-employed pensioner,
    the position did not remain the same after the passing of the orders in
    1963 and 1964 and thereafter. 1647 E-H, 648-A, CD]

C       1.2. However, the intention behind the orders issued in 1963,
  1964, 1978 and 1983 was to give some more benefit to the re-employed
  pensioners/ex-servicemen. The effect of the benefit was to be given at
  a stage prior to the consideration of hardship. The ignorable part of
  the pension was to be ignored while totalling up the initial pay plus the
  pension in order to find out whether the retired pensioner thereby was
D likely to get more or less than what he was getting at the time of his
  retirement. To that extent the 1958 policy stood altered or modified.
  Though the said four orders did not directly deal with the aspect of
  hardship they did by widening the gap between the initial pay plus the
  non-ignorable part of the pension and the pay he drew before his
  retirement and thereby further necessitated giving of advance
E increments to alleviate hardship. Moreover, pursuant to the orders
  issued in 1963 and 1964 corresponding amendments were made in
  Articles 521 and 526 of the Civil Service Regulations. The said
  Regcflations were made some time prior to 1914 and had acquired
  statutory authority under Section 96-B(4) of the Government of India
F Ae.t, 1919 and have been continued in force by virtue of Article 313 of
   the Constitution. They are, therefore, statutory in nature.
                                                         1648-H, 649-AD]

        1.3. The subsequent orders issued in 1978 and 1983 were
  supplementary in nature and did have a binding force. Under these
G circumstances, the Government could not have, under the guise of a
  clarificatory order, taken away the right which had accrued to such
  re-employed pensioners with retrospective effect by declaring that
  while considering hardship, the last pay drawn at the time of
  retirement was to be compared with the initial pay plus pension
  whether ignorable or not. The 1985 clarificatory instructions were
H not only inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Civil Service
     DIRECTOR GEN. OF POSTS v. B. RAVINDRAN [NANAVAfl, J.j 64 I


Regulations and the 1978 and 1983 orders but its effect was to supersede            A
the said provision and the orders. The Tribunal was, therefore, right
in holding the said instructions in so far as it directed to take into
consideration the ignorable part of the pension also while considering
hardship, invalid and without any authority of law.
                                                     1649-GH, 650-ABI
                                                                                    8
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4077-78
of 1992 Etc. Etc.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.90 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in Kerala in 0.A. Nos. 3 and 15 of
1989.                                                                               c
      R. Venugopal Reddy, K. N. Shukla, Heman! Shanna, W. A. Quadri,
K. V. Viswanthan, S. R. Selia, P. K. Manohar, C. V. Subba Rao, M. K. D.
Namboodri, Ms. Malini Poduval, Vijaykumar Verma, G. Prakash,
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. A. Subhashini, K. M.K. Nair, K. V. Venkataraman,
S. N. Terdol and Arvind Kr. Sharma for the appearing parties.                       D
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      NAVA VATI, J. Leave granted.

      The point which arises for consideration, in this batch of appeals, is
                                                                                    E
wJiether an ex-serviceman, who after his retirement before attaining the
age of 55 is re-employed in civil service, while getting his pay fixed, is
entitled to an advance increment only if his pay plus pension plus pension
equivalent of gratuity is less than the last pay drawn at the time of retirement.
                                                                                    F
      This question arises in the context of the following facts and
circumstances. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts of all these appeals
and, therefore, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 4077 of 1992
only. Ravindran, Applicant in 0.A. No. 3 of 1989, out of which this
appeal arises, after his retirement from Air Force, was re-employed as a            G
Postal Assistant on 29.11.83. He had served in the Air Force from 4.11.65
to 30.11.80. His last pay in the Air Force was Rs. 400/- per month and his
pension on the basis of the said service was fixed at Rs. 187 per month.
The pension equivalent of gratuity was Rs. 20.17. On his re-employment
as a Postal Assistant in the scale of Rs. 260-8-340-10-360-12-480 his pay
was fixed at Rs. 260/- being the minimum of the pay scale. According to             H
    642                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A him while fixing his pay and detennining hardship the whole of military
    pension which he was getting was required to be ignored and he ought to
    have been granted one advance increment for each completed year of
    military service in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance
    O.M. dated 25.11.58 read with Government oflndia, Ministry of Defence
    O.M. dated 8.2.83, as he was getting Rs. 140/- Jess than what he was
B   getting at the time of retirement from military service. As he had put in
    11 years' service in equivalent or higher grade in the Air Force his pay at
    the time of re-employment on 29.11.83 should have been fixed at Rs.
    350/- per month. He was denied this benefit and his initial pay was pegged
    down to the minimum of the pay scale at Rs. 260/- on the ground that his
    case cannot be regarded as a case of hardship in view of the clarification
C   made by the Department of Personnel and Training after consulting the
    Ministry of Finance and which is contained in the circular letter dated
    30.12.85 issued by the Director General, P & T. The applicant, therefore,
    approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged the said
    clarification and the letter dated 30.12.85 as arbitrary and against the
    provisions of pay fixation of re-employed pensioners. The respondents in
D   other appeals were also denied the benefit of advance increments for the
    same reason and, therefore, they had also challenged before the Tribunal
    the said clarification and the letter dated 30.12.85.

          The contention of the applicants before the Tribunal was that if ex-
E serviceman on being re-employed in civil service does not get by way of
    pay plus p"nsion plus pension equivalent of gratuity less than the last pay
    drawn by him at the time ofretirement then it cannot be said that fixation
    of his initial pay at the minimum of the prescribed pay scale has caused
    undue hardship to him and, therefore, his pay was not required to be fixed
    a higher stage by allowing one increment for each year of service which
F   the officer had rendered before retirement in a post not lower than that in
    which he is re-employed. This was the policy of the Government right
    from 1958 and what was implied was made clear by the Department of
    Personnel and Training after consulting the Ministry ofFinance. Therefore,
    the said clarification cannot be regarded as arbitrary or contrary to any
G   statutory provision or a provision having force of law.

          When 0.A. No.3 of 1989 along with 0.A. No. 15 of 1989 came up
    for hearing before the Division Bench of the Tribunal at Ernakulam it
    noticed that a Single Member Bench of the Tribunal had upheld this
  contention in an earlier 1natter. As it \Vas inclined to take a different view
H it raised the following two issues and referred them to a larger Bench:
     DIRECTOR GEN. OF POSTS v. B. RAVINDRAN [NANAVAl'I, J.J 643


              "(a) Whether for the purpose of granting advance increments      A
          over and above the minimum of the pay scale ofre-employment
          post in accordance with the O.M. of 25.11.1958, the whole or
          part of the military pension of the ex-servicemen which is to be
          ignored for the purpose of pay fixation, can be taken into account
          to reckon that the minimum of the pay scaie of the re-employment
          post plus pension, is more or less than the last m;litary pay        B
          drawn by the re-employed ex-serviceman for the grant of
          advance increments on re-e1nploy1nent; and

             (b) if 'Yes", i.e., if it is decided that the ignorable pension
             also has to be reckoned for the purpose of admissibility or
             advance increments, whether the orders issued to this effect      C
             in 1985 or 1987 can be given retrospective effect so as to
             adversely affect the initial pay of ex-servicemen who were
             re-employed prior to the issue of these instructions.

     A Full Bench of the Tribunal answered those questions as follows :        D

             (a) We hold that for the purpose of granting advance
             increments over and above the minimum of the pay scale of
             the re-employed post in accordance with the 1958 instructions
             (Annexures IV in O.A. No. 3 of 1989), the whole or part of
             the military pension of ex-servicemen which are to be ignored     E
             for the purpose of pay fixation in accordance with the
             instructions issued in 1964, 1978 and I 983 (Annexures V,
             V-a, and VI, respectively), cannot be taken into account to
             reckon whether the minimum of the pay-scale of the re-
             employed post plus pension is more or less than the last
             military pay drawn by the re-employed ex-servicemen.              F
             (b) The orders issued by the respondents in 1985 or I 987
             contrary to the administrative instructions of 1964, 1978 and
             1983, cannot be given retrospective effect to adversely affect
             the initial pay of ex-servicemen who were re-employed prior       G
             to the issue of these instructions.

      Following the decision of the Full Bench, 0.A. No. 3 of 1989 and
0.A. No. 15 of 1989 were disposed of by the Division Bench by declaring
that the applicants were entitled to be granted one advance increment for
each completed year of their military service in equivalent grade in fixing    H
    644                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A their pay in the post of Postal Assistant with effect from the date from
    which they were appointed if the minimum of Rs. 260 in ihe pay scale of
    Postal Assistant together with unignorable pai1 of their pension did not
    exceed last pay drawn by them in the Armed Force. The Tribunal also
    directed the respondents in those applications to exclude the ignorable
    part of their pension while deciding whether any undue hardship was caused
B   to the applicants by fixing their re-employment pay at the minimum of
    the pay scale of Postal Assistant. The Tribunal set aside the impugned
    orders and also the clarification to the extent they were contrary to the
    said declaration. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal in those
    two applications and similar orders passed in other applications the appellants
    have filed these appeals after obtaining special leave of this Court.
c
          The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the concept of·
    hardship was introduced by the Government in O.M. dated 25.11.1958 to
    ensure that there was no drop in the total package of pay and pension on
    re-employment. lt was never the intention of the Government to allow
    advance increments after comparing the minimum pay to the pre-retirement
D   pay as that would have entitled the ex-serviceman to double and unintended
    benefit. Thus the O.M. dated 30.12.1985 was clarificatory in nature as it
    made explicit what was implicit in O.M. dated 25.11.1958. The leaimed
    counsel further submitted. that the tribunal having rightly found that the
    instructions issued in 1964, 1978 and 1983 did not deal with the concept of
    hardship committed an error in holding that the O.M. dated 30.12.1985
E   was not clarificatory in nature and was inconsistent with the statutory
    provision contained in the Civil Service Regulations and the instructions
    issued thereunder which also have equally binding force. As the O.M.
    dated 30.12.1985 was clarificatory in nature the question of giving it
    retrospective effect did not arise at all. It was submitted that the view
    taken by the Tribunal is therefore wholly misconceived. As against these
F   submissions made on behalfofthe appellants, the learned counsel appearing
    for the respondents have submitted that the tribunal has correctly interpreted
    the O.Ms. of 1958, 1964, 1978, 1983 and 1985 and the effect of making
    a corresponding amendment in the Civil Service Regulations which are
    admittedly statutory in nature.
G
         On 25. l l .58 the Government of India took a policy decision in the
    matter of the procedure to be adopted in fixing the pay of pensioners re-
    employed in Central Civil Departments. It is applicable to all such
    pensioners. The relevant part of the said policy decision is as follows:

H                  (a) Re-employed pensioners should be allowed only the
DIRECTOR GEN. OF POSTS v. B RA VIND RAN [NANAV A Tl. J ) 645


    prescribed scales of pay, that is, no protected time scales such as     A
    those available to pre-1931 entrants should be extended to them.

       (b) The initial pay, on re-employment, should be fixed at
    the minimum stage of the scale of pay prescribed for the post in
    which an individual is re-employed.
                                                                            B
        In cases where it is felt that the fixation of initial pay of the
    re-employed officer at the minimum of the prescribed pay scale
    will cause undue hardship, the pay may be fixed at a higher
    stage by allowing one increment for each year of service which
    the officer has rendered before retirement in a post not lower
    than that in which he is re-employed.                                   C

       (c) In addition to (b) above, the Government servant may be
    permitted to draw separately any pension sanctioned to him and
    to retain any other form of retirement benefit for which he is
    eligible e.g. , Government's contribution to a Contributory             D
    Provident Fund, gratuity, cotnmuted value of pension, etc.
    provided that the total amount of initial pay as at (b) above, plus
    the gross amount of pension and/or the pension equivalent of
    other forms of retirement benefit does not exceed:-

         i) the pay he drew before his retirement (pre-retirement pay):     E
    or

         ii) Rs. 3,000, whichever is less.

Note I                                                                      F
       In all cases where either of these limits is exceeded, ·the
    pension and other retirement benefits may be paid in full and
    the necessary adjustments made in the pay so as to ensure that
    the total of pay and pensionary benefits is within the prescribed       G
    limits.

       Where, after the pay is fixed at the minimum or any higher
    stage, it is reduced below the minimum as a result of the said
    adjustments, increase in pay may be allowed after each year of
    service at the rates of increments admissible, as if the pay had        H
    646                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A                been fixed at the minimum or the higher stage as the case may
                 be.

           The Government of India felt that the capacity and usefulness of a
    person could not be greater than what it was at the ti;ne of retirement but
    this consideration became irrelevant when applied to persons who retired
B   1nuch earlier than the normal age of retirement of 58 years. Moreover,
    some of the lower ranks in the Defence Services, e.g., sepoys who retired
    at a very early age qualified themselves for various trades and professions
    after undergoing some training. It therefore thought that a distinction
    between officers who retired at the normal age of 58 and those who retired
    at an early age was desirable. Taking into account the difficulties of low
C   paid pensioners who retire at an early age, it decided that in case of persons
    retiring before attaining the age of 55 years, a pait of the pension may be
    ignored in computing pay on re-employment. Accordingly an O.M. was
    issued directing Civil pensions upto Rs, I 0 p.m. and Military pension upto
    Rs 15 p.m. should be ignored in fixing pay on re-employment. An
    amendment to that effect was also made in Articles 521 and 526 of the
D   Civil Service Regulations. As declared by the O.M. dated 16.1.1964 the
    Government again raised the limit in the following terms:-

          (i}       in the case of pensions not exceeding Rs. 50 per mensum the
                    actual pension.
E
          (ii)      in other cases, the first Rs. 50 of the pension.

        A corresponding amendment in the Civil Service Regulation was
  also made. This limit was further raised from Rs. 50 to Rs. 125 by Ministry
  of Finance O.M. dated 19.7.1978. By its 0.M. dated 8.2.1983 Ministry
F of Defence issued an order by raising the limit of pension to be ignored in
  fixing of pay from Rs. 125 to Rs. 250 in the case of Service Officers and
  declaring that the entire pension should be ignored in the case of personnel
  below Commissioned Officer's rank. All these orders were made effective
  from the dates on which they were issued. We have referred to only those
G orders which are relevant for the purpose of these appeals.

          It appears that the effect of making the entire pension ignorable in
    certain cases was examined by the Department of Personnel and Training
    in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. It was decided to issue the
    following clarification with respect to the mode of pay fixation of re-
H   employed pensioner:-
     DIRECTOR GEN. OF POSTS v. B. RAVINDRAN [NANA VAT!, J.] 647


             "When a re-employed pensioner asks for refixation of pay            A
             under the 1983 orders, his pay has to be fixed at the minimum
             of the scale. The question of granting him advance increments
             arises only if there is any hardship. Hardship is seen from
             the point whether pay plus pension plus pension equivalent
             of gratuity (whether ignorable or not) is less than the last
             pay drawn at the time of retirement. If there is no hardship        B
             no advance incre1nents can be granted."

      The said clarification was brought to the notice of all the concerned
authorities of the postal department by Assistant Director General of Posts
by circular dated 30.12.1985 and they were directed to review all such
previous ·cases in which the pay of the re-employed pensioners/ex-               C
serviceman were otherwise fixed under the Ministry of Defence order
dated 8.2.1983. As stated earlier this circular and the consequent action
were the subject matter of the applications filed by the respondents before
the tribunal.

       The effect of the order dated 8.2.1983 aad the circular dated             D
30.12.1985 was that in case of a pensioner who was re-employed on or
after 8.2.1983 his pay was to be refixed in terms of the said order and the
clarification. In respect of those ex-servicemen who opted to come under
those orders their pay was also to be fixed in the same manner.
                                                                                 E
      It is not in dispute that the original order for fixation of pay of re-
employed pensioners was contained in O.M. dated 25.11.1958. In the
matter of fixation of pay of such re-employed pensioners the first step
required to be taken was to fix his initial pay at the minimum stage of
scale of pay prescribed for the post on which he was re-employed. The            F
next step to be taken was to find out whether his pay thus fixed plus
pension(including other pensionary benefits) exce.eded the pay which he
drew before his retirement or Rs. 3000. If it exceeded either of those
limits then necessary adjustment was to be made in the pay by reducing it
below the minimum stage so as to ensure that the total pay including
pension was within the prescribed limits. lfthe initial pay plus the pension     G
was found to be less, then it was to be regarded as a case of undue hardship
and his pay was required to be fixed at higher stage by allowing one
increment for each year of service which the officer had rendered before
retirement in a post not lower than in which he was re-employed. However,
when it was noticed that this fonnula was not fair and just in cases of
pensioners who retired at an early age that is before 55 years, the Government   H
   648                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A in relaxation of the policy contained in the 1958 order decided to grant
  some benefits to such re-employed pensioners and issued an order directing
  that civil pension upto Rs. I 0 per month and military pension upto Rs. 15
  per month should be ignored in fixing pay on re-employment. Thus while
  totalling up the initial pay and the pension for the purpose of finding out
  whether the pensioner on re-employment was likely to get more or less
B than what he was getting earlier Rs. I 0 in case of civil pensioners and Rs.
   15 in case of military pensioners were to be ignored. In other words the
  amount of pension to be added to the initial pay was to be reduced to that
  extent. Thereafter his pay was to be adjusted depending upon whether the
  pensioner would thus get more or less on his re-employment. This
  relaxation was obviously in the nature of a modification of the earlier
C policy. As narrated above the said limits to be ignored were increased
  from time to time and by the O.M. dated 8.2.1983 in case of ex-servicemen,
  the limit was raised to Rs. 250 in case of service officers and in case of
   personnel below Commissioned Officer's ranks the entire pensionery benefits
  were to be ignored. Though in the beginning, according to the original
   policy contained in the 1958 order, the entire pension was to be added to
D the initial pay to find out whether it gave unintended advantage or caused
  undue hardship to the re-employed pensioner, the position did not remain
   the same after the passing of the orders in 1963 and 1964 and thereafter.
  The modifications thus made by the 1963 and 1964 orders were given
   legal status by amending Articles 521 and 526 of the Civil Service
E Regulations accordingly.
         However, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
   that the orders which were issued in 1963, 1964, 1978 and 1983 did not
   deal with the aspect of hardship and were not intended to replace or change
   the basic policy contained in the 1958 instructions. They were intended as
F relaxations and, therefore, they cannot be said to have the effect of altering
   or modifying.the 1958 policy. When the entire pension was made ignorable
   in the case of personnel below Commissioned Officer's rank the position
   substantially changed and, therefore, the Government was obliged to clarify
   that as contemplated by the 1958 instructions hardship is to be seen from
G th~ point whether pay plus pension plus pension equivalent of gratuity
 . (whether ignorable or not) was less than the last pay drawn at the time of
   ~etirement. What the Government thereby did was to reiterate that if
   there was no hardship no advance increment should be granted. What is
   over-looked by the learned counsel is that the intention behind the orders
   issued in 1963, 1964, 1978 and 1983 was to give some more benefit to the
H re-employed pensioners/ex-servicemen. The effect of the benefit was to
     DIRECTOR GEN. OF POSTS v. B. RAV!NDRAN [NANA VAT!, J.] 649


be given at a stage prior to the consideration of hardship. The ignorable A
part of the pension was to be ignored while totaling up the initial pay plus
the pension in order to find out whether the retired pensioner thereby was
likely to get more or less than what he was getting at the time of his
retirement. To that extent the 1958 policy stood altered or modified. Though
the said four orders did not directly deal with the aspect of hardship they
did by widening the gap between the initial pay plus the non-ignorable B
part of the pension and the pay he drew before his retirement and thereby
further necessitated giving of advance increments to alleviate hardship. It
is, therefore, not correct to say that those orders had no concern with the
aspect of hardship. What the contention raised on behalf of the appellants
further overlooks is that pursuant to the orders issued in 1963 and 1964
corresponding amendments were made in A11icles 521 and 526 of the C
Civil Service Regulations. The said Regulations were made some time
prior to 1914 and had acquired statutory authority under Section 96-B(4)
of the Government of India Act, 1919 and have been continued in force
by virtue of Article 313 of the Constitution. They are,therefore, statutory
in nature. After its amendment in 1964 it read as under:-
                                                                              D
      526(a) .................. .

      (b)

     (c) Jn case of Service personnel who retires from the Forces before      E
             attaining the age of 55 and are re-employed in Civil posts on
             or after 16th January, 1964 the pension shown below shall
             be ignored in fixing their pay on re-employment-

               (i) in the case of pensions not exceeding Rs. 50 per mensem,
               the actual pension;                                            F
               (ii) in other cases the first Rs 50 of the pension.

      The subsequent orders issued in 1978 and 1983 were supplementary
in nature and did have a binding force. Under these circumstances, the        G
Government could not have, under the guise of a clarificatory order, taken
away the right which had accrued to such re-employed pensioners with
retrospective effect by declaring that while considering hardship the last
pay drawn at the time of retirement was to be compared with the initial
pay plus pension whether ignorable or not. The 1985 clarificatory
instructions were not only inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the   H
    650                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A Civil Service Regulations and the 1978 and 1983 orders but its effect was
    to supersede the said provision and the orders. The Tribunal was, therefore,
    right in holding the said instructions in so far as it directed to take into
    consideration the ignorable part of the pension also while considering
    hardship invalid and without any authority of law. These appeals ire,
    therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
B
    v.s.s.                                                  Appeals dismissed.