3.2. At paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner 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 ₹7,566/−÷ 3 × 2 = ₹5,044 ÷ 2 = ₹2,522/− per month. It is contended by Sri Basudev Pujari, learned 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.
