some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant. As regards the monthly income, it is evident that while assessing the monthly income, the tribunal erroneously took the basic pay as Rs.3,375/- whereas the same was Rs.5,375/-. This is an apparent error and this needs to be rectified. While reassessing the monthly income after rectifying the said mistake, it would come to Rs.11,387/-. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the practice of split multiplier merely taking into account the remaining period of service before attaining the age of superannuation was deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puttamma ’s case and Sumathi ’s case (supra). In Sumathi ’s case (supra), it was categorically observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the split multiplier cannot be applied, merely because the deceased was to retire in four years. In this case, it is evident that the deceased had 7 years of service remaining at the time of the death. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, the salary which was being drawn by the appellant at the time of the death has to be applied for the entire multiplier. It is also to be noted in
