In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was continued in service beyond 58 years of age on Court orders and was paid salary for the extended period at the same rates which was paid on the date of superannuation of 58 years. It is also stated that, since the petitioner continued in service beyond 58 years of age on court orders, he was paid salary for the extended period at the same rates which was paid on the date of superannuation and that sanction of increments beyond the age of superannuation of 58 years may not arise. According to the respondents, retired Lecturers were eligible for career advancement scales of Rs. 3700/- to Rs. 5700/- with effect from 01-01-1986 and accordingly the petitioner’s increments had been allowed with effect from 01-07-1986 and that the normal date of increments and his pay came to Rs. 4075/as on 01-07-1988 and, as such, his ten months average pay had been taken from March, 1988 to June, 1988 at Rs. 3,950/- and from July, 1988 to December, 1988 at Rs. 4075/- and thus his pension came to Rs. 4025/- which multiplied into 33/80 came to Rs. 1661/- According to the respondents, while the petitioner’s pension had been revised downwards by the Accountant General at Rs. 1424/-, his service beyond the age of 58 years has to be treated as ‘just service’ and his pension has to be revised to Rs.1661/- instead of Rs. 1424/- with effect from 01-11-1992 as per orders contained in G.O.Ms.No. 2, Education Department, dated 05-01-1994.
