Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; 1950 *** Bansidhar Senapati Aged about 61 years Son of Late Kasinath Senapati of Plot No.19A Madhusudan Nagar Unit-IV, Bhubaneswar-751001 … District: Khordha. -VERSUS- 1. State Bank of India Represented through Chairman-cum-Managing Director Central Office, Cuffe Parade Mumbai, Maharashtra. 2. Chief General Manager State Bank of India, Amravati Circle Gunfoundry, Hyderabad Telangana. 3. Assistant General Manager PPG Department, Amravati Circle, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad Telangana. … Petitioner. Opposite parties. W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 1 of 22 Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : M/s. Basudev Pujari and Birendra Kumar Nayak, Advocates For the Opposite parties : Mr. Shakti Prasad Das, Advocate P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 28.08.2024 J UDGMENT MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— THE CHALLENGE: The petitioner has come up before this Court craving to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to grant pension in terms of Regulation 33(1) of THE STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (EMPLOYEES’) PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995, and made the following prayer(s): “The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships may kindly consider the facts and law submitted above, admit the petition, issue notice to the opposite parties to show cause as to why the petition shall not be allowed and considering the causes shown, if any, and after hearing the counsel for the parties; W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 2 of 22 And allow the petition with cost and issue appropriate nature of writ directing the opposite parties to pay full pension to the petitioner in terms of the decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 314 or in terms of Regulation 33(1) of THE STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (EMPLOYEES’) PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” FACTS: 2. Facts, as adumbrated by the writ petitioner, reveal that while working as Rural Development Officer in erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad (an Associate Bank merged with the State Bank of India with effect from 01.04.2017), the petitioner got promoted to Scale-II in 1993, and faced Disciplinary Proceeding drawn against him in the year, 1998 while he was serving at the Gada Gopinath Prasad Branch of the Bank at Bhubaneswar. 2.1. The Order dated 29.01.2001 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement by the Disciplinary Authority,
Legal Reasoning
being appealed against, got confirmed by Order dated 31.07.2001 and a review thereof also followed the same consequence. The writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.3093 of 2002 questioning the punishment of compulsory retirement also stood dismissed by this Court by a Judgment dated 17.01.2020, with the following observations: W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 3 of 22 “8. *** Considering the above and as this Court finds, many of the charges being serious, this Court is of the opinion that establishment of any one of them even appearing to be unbecoming on the part of a responsible Officer of a Bank. The Disciplinary Authority having taken a lenient view appearing to the punishment of compulsory have passed retirement instead of dismissal from service, the same cannot be termed to be disproportionate to the quantum of offence. For the clear finding of the Enquiry Officer being confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority and for the settled provision of law that Writ Court cannot seat as an appellate authority in this situation, this Court has no scope to interfere in the impugned orders.
Legal Reasoning
9. Taking into account the citations shown by Shri Tripathy learned counsel for the petitioner this Court finds, for the clear establishment of the charges and involvement of serious allegation and for difference in the fact scenario in the cited decisions, none of the decisions have any application to the case of the petitioner. It is, on the other hand, this Court finds, the decision in the case of Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vrs. State Bank of India and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 314 supports the case of the Bank as against the claim of the petitioner that for the recoveries of the shortfalls being made, there is no loss on the Bank, therefore the petitioner should have been exonerated. Decision in the case of Ch. Laxmikantham Vrs. The Chairman, State Bank of India and others, reported in 101 (2006) CLT 65, the case of The Disciplinary-cum- Decision Regional Manager and others Vrs. Nikunja Bihari Pattnaik, reported in 83 (1997) CLT 533 (SC) in W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 4 of 22 supports the case of the Bank on the objection to the interference in the Disciplinary Proceeding on the premises that a Writ Court is not competent to appreciate the evidence and findings by the Enquiry authority. Similarly on the question of impugned order being passed by an incompetent officer this Court finds, the Bank has support of the decision in the case of State of India Versus S. Vijaya Kumar as reported in (1990) 4 SCC 481 and State Bank of India Vrs. S. Vijay Kumar, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 481. 10. It is, in the circumstance this Court finds, there is no merit involving the Writ Petition, which is hereby dismissed accordingly. However there is no order as to cost.” 2.2. Notwithstanding the punishment of compulsory retirement attained finality in the year 2020, the petitioner was granted pension vide Order dated 25.02.2004. Questioning the fixation of basic pension at ₹1,486/- per month, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition on the ground that the computation of basic pension at ₹1,486/- is not only erroneous but also contrary to express provision contained in Regulation 33 of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995 (“Regulations”, in short) and runs counter to ratio of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vrs. State Bank of India, (2004) Supp.(6) SCR 101 = AIR 2005 SC 314 = 2004 INSC 651. W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 5 of 22 2.3. The petitioner has set up a claim as follows: “*** That the petitioner was made to retire on 29.01.2001 so he is entitled to be paid pension with effect from 30.01.2001 in terms of the said provision which is in force. He is entitled to have a pension Basic of ₹2,574.47. But as the order at Annexure-2 shows he is being paid @ ₹1,456/- (Basic Pension) per month. *** ” 2.4. Having received notice from this Court pursuant to order dated 03.02.2021, the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit stating that prior to award of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 28.11.1997 and as a result of such Disciplinary Proceeding, the suspension period was treated as “Off Duty”. 2.5. Refuting the claim of the petitioner, the opposite parties sought to justify their action by asserting that the amount of pension as fixed has been computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapters V and VI. Refuting the averments of the petitioner, it is stated that the Bank has computed such basic pension in consonance with what is stipulated in Regulation 33 as also other provisions of the Regulation, 1995. Affirming that the pension fixed at ₹1,486/-, being appropriate proportionate pension duly approved by the competent authority, the opposite parties have sought to justify the amount of pension granted to the petitioner W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 6 of 22 and submitted the following at paragraphs 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit: “*** 11. That in the present case, the Managing Director is the competent Authority for sanction of compulsory retirement pension as per the above Regulations at a rate not less than 2/3rd and not more than full pension, the appropriate amount of 2/3rd and full pension in respect of the petitioner is as under: (i) The monthly basic pension at 2/3rd rate works to ₹1,015/-; (ii) The monthly full basic pension payable works to ₹1486/- Only those employees who have completed a qualifying service of not less than 33 years of service are eligible for full pension as per Regulation 35(2). Other employees who have not completed a qualifying service of 33 years are eligible for proportionate pension as per Regulation No. 35(6)(a). Hence, the Pension of the petitioner was correctly fixed (in proportion to his service of 13 years) in accordance with the Pension Regulations. The detailed service particulars of employee are as under: Date of Birth Date of appointment Date of retirement Suspension period compulsory Total qualifying service : 12.02.1960 : 26.04.1985 : 29.01.2001 : 28.11.1997 to 29.01.2001 : 12 years 9 months (Excluding suspension W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 7 of 22 Average of salary Drawn during the last 10 months of his service Calculation of Basic Pension period) years rounded to 13 ₹7,542.46 ( ₹7542.46 33 = ₹1,485.46 ≅ × 13 ) ÷ 2 ₹1,486/− 12. That this deponent humbly submits that in view of the above calculation the basic monthly full pension of the petitioner was fixed correctly at ₹1,486/- as above. Even though the Bank could have imposed a cut of 1/3rd in the above amount in terms of Regulation No. 33(1) of the Subject Regulations, the Bank sanctioned ₹1,486/- basic full pension per month, without imposing any cut. ***”. Rival contentions and submissions: 3. Reiterating the stance of the petitioner in writ application, Sri Basudev Pujari, Learned Advocate submitted that the average last pay drawn of the petitioner being ₹7,542.46P. (as stated in the counter affidavit), the pension should have been computed as in terms of Regulation 38(3) read with Regulation 35(2). ₹7,542.46 ÷ 2 = ₹3,771.23 ≅ ₹3,772/− 3.1. Since the petitioner served for 13 years (i.e., after completing qualifying service of ten years) and retired before qualifying service of thirty-three years, the proportionate basic pension calculated as per Regulation W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 8 of 22 35(6)(a) by the Bank (vide Letter dated 25.02.2004 in
Decision
Annexure-2 of the writ petition) is as follows: (Average emoluments for the last ten months of service ÷ 2) × (Length of service ÷ 33) 3.2. At paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner = (₹7542.46 ÷ 2) × (13 ÷ 33) = ₹1,486/− admits to have been granted basic pension at ₹1,486/-. Disputing said figure, the learned counsel for the petitioner stemming on additional rejoinder to the counter affidavit the basic salary of the petitioner as on 27.11.1997 (date of suspension) was ₹70,590/- and was granted last increment on 01.04.1997 at ₹120/-. Therefore, he submitted that as last ten months’ average salary was required to be taken into consideration for determination of pension, the salary from April to November, 1997 his salary was at the rate of ₹7,590/- per month and for rest of two months, i.e., February and March, 1997, his salary was at ₹7,470/- per month. Hence, the average of his ten months’ salary comes to ₹7,566/- and the full pension on the said amount in terms of Regulation 33(1) read with Regulation 35(2), would be per month. It is contended by Sri Basudev Pujari, learned ₹7,566/− ÷ 3 × 2 = ₹5,044 ÷ 2 = ₹2,522/− Advocate that though the petitioner is entitled to be granted pension of ₹2,522/- per month, he has been paid ₹1,486/-, which is not acceptable. W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 9 of 22 3.3. It is vehemently contended by Sri Basudev Pujari, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Bank has failed to extend the benefit of appropriate pension as contemplated under Regulation 33 which deals with “Compulsory Retirement Pension” and insisted for issue of a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties for computing the amounts of pension appropriately and disburse the same in favour of the petitioner as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ganesh Santa Ram Vrs. State Bank of India, AIR 2005 SC 314. 4. Sri. Shakti Prasad Das, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties-State Bank of India per contra submitted that the Bank has made just and proper computation of pension, which does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise the power of judicial review. He stood by the computation as set out at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, which has already been extracted hereinabove. 4.1. Laying emphasis on Regulation 38(3) he submitted that Regulation 33 cannot be read in isolation but has to be construed harmoniously by taking cognizance of Regulations 35 and 38. Therefore, he opposed strenuously the contentions of the petitioner for grant of higher amount of pension. W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 10 of 22 Relevant provisions of the Regulations, 1995 and Analysis: 5. Before delving into the merit of the rival contentions vis- a-vis provisions of the Regulations as stemmed upon by counsel for both the sides, for ready reference the relevant provisions contained in THE STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (EMPLOYEES’) PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995 have been extracted hereinbelow: “*** CHAPTER-V 33. Compulsory Retirement Pension.— (1) An employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993 in terms of Service Regulations or Settlement by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty may be granted pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date. (2) Whenever the Competent Authority passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding pension at a rate less than the full pension admissible under these regulations, the Board of Director or its Executive Committee shall be consulted Before such order is passed. (3) A Pension granted or awarded under sub-regulation (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-regulation (2), W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 11 of 22 shall not be less than the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem. CHAPTER VI RATE OF PENSION 35. Amount of Pension.— (1) (2) In respect of employees who retired between the 1st day of January, 1986 but before the 31st day of October, 1987, basic pension and additional pension will be updated as per the formula given in Appendix -1. In the case of an employee retiring in accordance with the provisions of the Service Regulations or Settlement after completing a qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years the amount of basic pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of the average emoluments. (3) (a) Additional pension shall be fifty per cent of the average amount of the allowance drawn by an employee during the last ten months of his service; (b) no dearness relief shall be paid on the amount of additional pension. Explanation.— For the purpose of this sub-regulation ‘allowances’ means are for making admissible contributions to the Provident Fund. the extent counted allowances which to (4) Pension as computed being aggregate of sub- regulations (2) and (3) above shall be subject to the minimum pension as specified in these regulations. W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 12 of 22 (5) An employee who has commuted the admissible portion of his pension as per the provisions of Regulation 41 of these regulations shall receive only the balance of pension, monthly. (6) (a) In the case of an employee retiring before completing a qualifying service of thirty- three years, but after completing a qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under sub- regulations (2) and (3) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than the amount of minimum pension specified in these regulations. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the ordinary rate of family pension which would have been payable to his family in the event of his death while in service. (7) The amount of pension finally determined under this regulation shall be expressed in whole rupee and where the pension contains a fraction of a rupee, it shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee. 38. Determination of the period of ten months for average emoluments.— (1) The period of the preceding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date of retirement. (2) In the care of voluntary retirement or premature retirement the period of the preceding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 13 of 22 reckoned from the date on which the employee voluntarily retires or is premature retired by the Bank. In the case of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement or termination of service the period of the preceding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date on which the employee is dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or terminated by the Bank. If during the last ten months of the service an employee had been absent from duty on extraordinary leave on loss of pay or had been under suspension and the period whereof does not count as service, the aforesaid period of extraordinary leave or suspension shall not be taken into account in the calculation of the average emoluments and an equal period before the ten months shall be included. (3) (4) ***” 6. Regulation 33, dealing with Compulsory Retirement Pension entitles an employee compulsorily retired from service is to be granted pension at the rate not less than 2/3rd and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date. The quantum of pension so entitled to in terms of Regulation 33 is required to be computed in terms of Regulations 35(2), 35(3) and 35(6)(a). Cumulative effect of aforesaid provisions in the Regulations, 1995, makes W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 14 of 22 it abundantly clear that employees retiring before completing qualifying service of 33 years, but after completing the qualifying service of 10 years the amount of pension shall be determined at proportionate to the amounts of pension admissible under sub-regulations (2) and (3) of Regulation 35 with the rider that the amounts of pension shall not be less than the amounts of minimum pension specified in the Regulations and the amount of basic pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of the average emoluments. The determination of the “average emoluments” shall be as per Regulation 38 of the Regulations, 1995. It is stipulated under Regulation 35(4) that pension is required to be computed as per sub-regulations (2) and (3) shall be subject to the minimum pension as specified in the Regulations. 6.1. Being appointed by Order dated 26.04.1985 and got punishment of compulsory retirement by Order of punishment dated 29.01.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority with suspension period from 28.11.1997 to 29.01.2001, the petitioner had served for around 12 years 9 months which is rounded off to 13 years. The average salary drawn during the last 10 months of his service as per Regulation 38 was Rs.7,542.46P. Therefore, the proportionate basic pension as computed by the Bank stands as follows: (₹7,542.46 ÷ 33 × 13) × 50% = ₹1,485.64 ≅ ₹1,486/− W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 15 of 22 6.2. However, referring to Regulation 35(2) the petitioner contradicting the aforesaid calculation of the Bank, though accepted average of salary drawn during the last 10 months of his service at Rs.7,542.46, by way of written note of submissions in course of hearing submitted that the full pension would have to be “₹7,542.46(cid:247)2=₹3,771.23”, though in the Additional Rejoinder Affidavit filed on 29.07.2024 asserted that the full pension would be ₹2,522/- per month. Significant it is to note that the petitioner is unsure of the method of calculation and amount of pension to be claimed. What is suggested by him seems to be that he is entitled to pension “at fifty percent of the average emoluments” as stipulated under Regulation 35(3) without adhering to the methods prescribed to be followed under Regulations 35(6)(a) and 38. Such course as suggested by the petitioner is eschewed. Therefore, this Court rejects the quantum of pension as computed by the petitioner, but finds the method of calculation of amount of pension as put forth by the Bank based on provisions of Regulations rational and appropriate. 6.3. What has been missed to have glance at by the petitioner is Regulation 35(6)(a). The calculation as suggested by the petitioner by simply resting on provisions of Regulation 35(3)(a) without taking into account Regulation 35(6)(a) is thoroughly misconceived. Rather, the submission of Sri Shakti Prasad Das, W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 16 of 22 learned counsel for the opposite parties sounds logical and based on method and manner prescribed under the Regulations and this Court is one with the learned counsel for the opposite parties that while computing the amount of pension, the provisions of Regulation 35 are required to be read juxtaposed with Regulation 38 of the Regulations, 1995. Since Regulation 35(6)(a) requires the amounts of pension to be proportionate to the amounts of pension admissible under sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 35, as it appears the contention of the opposite parties can be said to be countenanced in accordance with law. This Court, thus, finds no illegality or infirmity in the computation of amount of pension as being released in favour of the petitioner by the opposite parties. 6.4. At this stage it may be fruitful to refer to the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United Bank of India Vrs. Pijush Kanti Nandy, (2009) 12 SCR 509, which according to this Court, has considerable weight to examine applicability of provisions of Regulation 35 read with Regulation 38, besides Regulation 33 of THE STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (EMPLOYEES’) REGULATION, 1995: “We may notice that this Court in Indian Bank & Anr. v. N. Venkatramani, (2007) 10 SCC 609, held: ‘13. It may be true that various provisions of the Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, Page 17 of 22 W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 23, etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions. It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to pension provided he has completed the specified period of service. How such a period of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period, the same cannot be the Regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally.’ lost sight of. Provision of In that case, the question arose as to how the lack in period of service of less than one year shall be construed. This Court held that Regulation 18 was not controlled by Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23 etc. as it provided for a Rule of Measurement. It is, however, trite that even a beneficial legislation should not be extended to such an extent whereby it would take into within its fold a situation which was not contemplated under the statute.” 7. The petitioner has laid emphasis on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vrs. State Bank of India, (2004) Supp.(6) SCR 101 = AIR 2005 SC 314 = 2004 INSC 651 to claim that he is entitled to full pension. This Court has taken this opportunity to have regard to said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and since there no W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 18 of 22 dispute raised by the opposite parties with regard to entitlement to pension, accepts the plea of the petitioner for entitlement to the pension, but not “full pension”. As has already been discussed herein above, the pension in the circumstance where the employee is awarded punishment of compulsory retirement is required to be computed in the manner prescribed under the Regulations, 1995. In Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vrs. State Bank of India, (2004) Supp.(6) SCR 101 = AIR 2005 SC 314 = 2004 INSC 651 no absolute proposition is laid down to extend the benefit of full pension in every case of compulsory retirement. 7.1. In the instant case there is no confusion regarding entitlement of the petitioner for pension; but the dispute is with respect to calculation of amount of pension qua employee having handed over punishment of compulsory retirement after completing a qualifying service of ten years but before completing a qualifying service of thirty- three years. 7.2. The quantum of pension as determined by the Bank in terms of Regulations 33, 35 and 38 is found to be just and proper. Having diligently considered the rival contentions, averments of the petitioner and material made available by the parties to the proceeding, this Court is disinclined to exercise the power of judicial review against such computation inasmuch as the W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 19 of 22 opposite parties have allowed proportionate pension to the petitioner. Conclusion: 8. In ultimate analysis it transpired that the petitioner has claimed that the amount of “full pension should be ₹2,522/- per month” in the Additional Rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties on 29.07.2024; but by filing written note of submission dated 20.08.2024 it has made it clear that the full pension would be “as per Regulation 35(2), rounded off upto ₹3,771/-” and at the same breath he stated that “applying Regulation 33(1), the basic pension of the petitioner” would be ₹2,514/-. 8.1. As is well-established requiring no authority to cite, but referring to Syed Dastagir Vrs. Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 6 SCC 337 would suffice to say that, in construing a plea in any pleading, Courts must keep in mind that plea is not an expression of art and science but an expression through words to place fact and law of one’s case for a relief. Such an expression may be pointed, precise, sometimes vague but still it could be gathered what he wants to convey through only by reading the whole pleading, depending on the person drafting the plea. To gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole. W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 20 of 22 8.2. It is also trite, vide Bhavnagar University Vrs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 for reference, that it is the basic principle of construction of statute that the same should be read as a whole, then chapter by chapter, section by section and words by words. Recourse to construction or interpretation of statute is necessary when there is ambiguity, obscurity, or inconsistency therein and not otherwise. An effort must be made to give effect to all parts of statute and unless absolutely necessary, no part thereof shall be rendered surplusage or redundant. True meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis of what provides by its clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law. Scope of the legislation on the intention of the legislature cannot be enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. It is also well- settled that a beneficent provision of legislation must be liberally construed so as to fulfil the statutory purpose and not to frustrate it. 8.3. As all the provisions of the Regulations, 1995 are required to be read conjointly to arrive at appropriate W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 21 of 22 figure which is to be made over to the petitioner as pension, the opposite parties, it is found, have computed the amount of pension for disbursal by applying appropriate formulae based on facts. Such factual foundation in computation of quantum of pension, being based on methods and principles envisaged in Regulations 33, 35 and 38 of the Regulations, 1995, needs no indulgence. 9. In the result, finding no merit in the averments, contentions and arguments/submissions, in the wake of above discussions and for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 28th August, 2024//Laxmikant/Suchitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Aug-2024 15:29:41 W.P.(C) No.519 of 2021 Page 22 of 22