Inclusive pension emoluments require last pay to include allowances, while separate pension heads cannot be clubbed for revision.

Pension under clause 2(a) had to be computed on the basis of the last emoluments actually received, because the definition of emoluments in Rule 62 was inclusive and could not be read as limiting pension to basic pay alone; dearness allowance and special allowances formed part of the relevant emoluments. The amounts payable under clauses 2(a) and 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 could not be aggregated for revision, since clause 2(b) created a separate additional pension head and the revision order extended only to ordinary pension under clause 2(a).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's pension under clause 2(a) was to be computed on the basis of the last emoluments received, including dearness allowance and special allowances, or only on the basic salary of Rs. 3,500/-; (ii) whether the amounts payable under clauses 2(a) and 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 could be aggregated for revision of pension, and whether a ceiling under clause 2(b) applied.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's pension under clause 2(a) was to be computed on the basis of the last emoluments received, including dearness allowance and special allowances, or only on the basic salary of Rs. 3,500/-.

Analysis: Rule 62 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules defines emoluments by reference to the amount actually received immediately before retirement, and the inclusive words used in the definition do not narrow the opening part of the rule. The expression "and includes" was held not to mean "and only includes". On that basis, the last emoluments could not be confined to the basic salary alone where dearness allowance and special allowances formed part of the retirement emoluments.

Conclusion: The pension had to be fixed on the basis of Rs. 4,237/-, being the last emoluments inclusive of dearness allowance and special allowances, and not merely on Rs. 3,500/-.

Issue (ii): Whether the amounts payable under clauses 2(a) and 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 could be aggregated for revision of pension, and whether a ceiling under clause 2(b) applied.

Analysis: Clause 2(a) relates to ordinary pension, while clause 2(b) provides a distinct special additional pension for completed years of service. The revision order of 18.12.1987 expressly dealt only with the ordinary pension under clause 2(a), and did not authorise combining the two clauses for the purpose of revision. As to the ceiling under clause 2(b), the restraint was not operative against the appellant in the actual calculation made by the respondents, so no separate operative direction was required on that aspect.

Conclusion: The figures under clauses 2(a) and 2(b) could not be clubbed for revision of pension, and no ceiling was to be imposed on the appellant's entitlement under clause 2(b).

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in part: the pension had to be recalculated on the basis of the last emoluments actually received, without combining the two pension heads, and without applying any ceiling to the additional pension component.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a pension provision defines emoluments in inclusive terms, the inclusive part cannot cut down the substantive opening definition; and a revision order directed only at ordinary pension cannot be extended to combine it with a separate additional pension head.

---