This question posted in other topic and is reposted here to get speedy answers.
(kindly refer ccs pension rule 1972- rule 29A, 36b, 48A/6a, 49(2) )
Facts are:
1. I am a surplus employee with 16.5 years of qualifying service(QS). (less than 20yrs but more than 10yrs)
2. Surplus rules provide Special Voluntary retirement benefit for surplus employees and their retirement benefits will be over and above normal retirement benefits under ccs pension rules.
The question is:
wether I will be elegible for full pension as under rule 49(2) of ccs pension rules with 10yrs of QS and less than 20yrs of QS.(Rule 48A/6a specifically exclude surplus vrs optees from having 20yrs of qualifying service. and Rule 49(2) unambigously says "In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing the qualifying service of not less than ten years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fiftyper cent of emoluments" (note the plural word Provisions which means its intention is more than one provision)
The interpretation doubt of the rule is...
Is rule 49(2) only for calculating amount of pension. In this case what is the necessity of having the conditional clause built into the rule. It could have been only mathematical workouts with formulas.
Can rule 49(2) with 10yrs of QS be interpreted in following manner --- 49(2) provision applies to retirement happening only to cases of superannuation and no other cases. (This type of interpretaion is held is court several times as only surperannuation is premitted under 49(2) but no where mentioned in 49(2))
Rule 48A/6a it clearly excludes surplus employees from having 20yrs minimum service for retirement.
This bring us to the question that: (view this question from rule 48A/6a perspective of excluding suplus employees with 20yrs of QS)
Will retirement under ccs pension rule entitle a person for pension under it? does the word retirement mean the employee is entitled for pension? ( Generally this is the course courts take and they clearly differentiate each thing seperatley and looks for rule behind each objects that they differenciate)
To sum up in mathematical terms of set theory... Retirement is a universal set, while pension is a subset of universal set. Right of universal set does not confer right to subset while right to subset obviously entitles for universal set. (to illustrate: Rivers are universal set and kaveri river is a subset. Entitlement for River doesnot guarntee kaveri river but entitlement for kaveri river guarntees River and kaveri river in particular.)
In the facts above can any one clarify the entitlement of pension with 10yrs of QS and less than 20yrs of QS as applicable to surplus employees seeking Special voluntary retirement.
