Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
R Sekar vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 12 September, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00644/2024
Dated this the 12th day of September 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Sri.R.SEKAR aged 57 years
C/o S Manjubala, S/o R. Ramaswamy
4-4031, Prestige Boulevard, 13 ECC Road,
Prithy layout
Whitefield, Bangaluru 560066
Phone 8870000574
EX-EMPLOYEE
ВНАВНА ATOMIC RESEARCH
CENTRE MYSURU-571130 ...... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri.Bharathraj.J)
Vs.
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY,
NEW DELHI. -110011
2. ВНАВНА ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
MYSURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT
DIRECTOR, RATNAHALLY COMPLEX
POST BAG NO.1
HUNSUR ROAD YELWAL P.O
MYSURU 571130. ......Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.Vishnu Bhat for Respondent Nos.1 to 2)
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
2025.09.18
Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act. 1985 to claim the following reliefs:
"a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Grant pro rata pension and Gratuity.
b. Direct respondent to pay arrears and interest. c. For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in view of the aforesaid statements and circumstances of the case. In the interest of justice and equity."
2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(i) to 5(vi) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case of the applicant as given in the synopsis are that the Applicant has served his duty under BARC, RMP, Mysuru from 24-02-1987 to 02-07-1997, joined as Scientific Assistant 'B' & promoted to 'C' in 1991. Total 10 years of continuous service at RMP Mysuru.
3. The Applicant submits that his career was frozen by not even being considered for a promotional interview from 1992 to 1997 when Applicant acquired B.E (distinction) from Mysore University in 1992 with permission obtained to study part-time from the Dept in 1988 and intimated his employer after completion. Higher qualification SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE promotion Interviews those days were held at BARC, Mumbai. Applicant was disheartened and approached CAT, Bangalore in 1993, where Applicant CRs produced in the Tribunal were untrue / corrected poorly rated by the Department officials by the advice of then Project Manager Shri. N D Sharma, even though Applicant was discharging his duty diligently without any adverse remarks. Applicant asserts that it was a clear vengeance in the mind of the Project Manager Shri. N D Sharma for one earlier incident probably 1991/92 between a few staff/including applicant one of the security officers. The unfortunate part was Applicant travelled in the KSRTC chartered bus during one 2nd shift and was not allowed to go inside the plant by a Security officer. And all together about 10 staff returned home when it was raining. That incident Applicant submitted an apology as a first person to the Project Manager Shri. N D Sharma.
4. The Department conducted one normal promotional interview with Applicant at Mysore in June 1997 as an eye wash in the 7th year of Scientific Assistant 'C' & was solely refused by the Project Manager Shri. N D Sharma to promote the applicant when the committee questioned him by appreciating applicant's interview performance (Came to know through by Dept Head who represented). SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
5. The Applicant was mentally depressed and was at unrest for 6 years which led to the "Forced Resignation" immediately by the action of the Project Manager Shri. N D Sharma in the month of June 1997 from Govt service with Personal reasons.
6. The Applicant sought for pro-rated Pension and Gratuity. All the past 26 years he never referred to pension rules or from the Dept no one guided him, except to submit final settlement forms for PF & Group insurance / mentioned in his resignation acceptance letter on 02.07.1997. Given the circumstances, and based on the continuous service from February 24, 1987, to July 2, 1997, totalling 10 years, the applicant has no effective remedy other than to approach this Tribunal. Hence, he has filed this O.A claiming the above-mentioned reliefs.
7. On notice, respondents have filed their reply statement and objections to M.A 663/2024 for condonation of delay. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant thereafter.
8. When the case came up for final hearing on 12.9.2025, learned counsel Shri.Bharathraj.J for the applicant and Shri.Vishnu Bhat for Respondent Nos.1 to 2 were present and heard. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
9. We have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions.
10. After argument from both sides, and considering the merit of the case and for the reasons as given in M.A No.663/2024 for condonation of delay, delay in filing the Original Application was condoned and the M.A. No. 663/2024 was accordingly allowed.
11. From the facts placed before us it is evident that in the case of the applicant, he joined the service on 24.2.1987 as Scientific Assistant B on a fixed term basis and he was regularized with effect from 1.5.1991 and subsequently promoted to Scientific Assistant Grade C and he was governed under the contributory provident fund scheme and on his own volition he tendered his resignation from government service and he was relieved on 2.7.1997.
12. As per the respondents, subsequently, all dues, including CPF, CGEGIS, EL encashment, and salary arrears, were settled in the year 2000 upon receipt of his duly filled forms.
13. The respondents emphatically say that there is no due left for the applicant for his service as discharged during the years he worked with them from 24.2.1987 to 2.7.1997.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
14. The applicant emphatically said that as he had completed 10 years of service, considering his meritorious service, he should be granted pro rata pension, but for the same, he was unable to show us any specific rules. The respondents emphatically assert that as the applicant had voluntarily resigned from the service and his resignation was accepted by the respondents, he was not eligible for pension and pensionary benefits as per Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
15. The respondents have placed before us Annexure R-2, which is a copy of the Gazette of India : Extraordinary dated 20.12.2021, which is a copy of the rules called 'the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021', which inter-alia, other things at Section 26 (1) mentions that:
"26. Forfeiture of service on resignation:
(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service."
16. The said section has other provisions which are the following:
"(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE (3) The order accepting the resignation should clearly indicate that the Government servant has resigned to join another appointment with proper permission and a specific entry to this effect shall also be made by the Head of Office in the service book of the Government servant. (4) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him.
(5) The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:
(i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation ;
(ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper;
(iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person applies for permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days;
(iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.
(6) Request for withdrawal of a resignation shall not be accepted by the appointing authority where a SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Government servant resigns his service or post with a view to taking up an appointment in or under a private commercial company or in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government.
(7) When an order is passed by the appointing authority allowing a person to withdraw his resignation and to resume duty, the order shall be deemed to include the condonation of interruption in service but the period of interruption shall not count as qualifying service. (8) A resignation submitted for the purpose of rule 35 or rule 36 shall not entail forfeiture of past service under the Government. "
17. We have carefully gone through the entire Rule 26, even in the rules earlier than the date of this notification, i.e., 28.12.2021 and the case of the applicant is only covered by Rule 26(1) and not by any other provisions. The applicant was unable to show us any rule contrary to this which may be applicable to him, and in his case it is not denied that it was a case of simple resignation from service followed by the acceptance of his request by his employer. And, as per Section 26(1), resignation from a service or a post unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority it entails forfeiture of past service. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
18. The respondents are right that after acceptance of his resignation, his past service is forfeited, and at this juncture, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant cannot ask for pro-rata pension.
19. Further, the applicant has asserted that he was eligible for gratuity. The relevant rules regarding gratuity were placed before us which are also reproduced in the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 14.8.2018 in Civil Appeal No.8251/2018 arising out of SLP No.3852/2017 Union of India and Others v. C.G.Ajay Babu and Another, Section 4 of the Gratuity Act to the extent relevant, reads as follows:
"4. Payment of gratuity.-(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,-
(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease:
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement:
Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement.
XXX XXX XXX XXX (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1).-
(a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused:
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited-
(i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or
(ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.' (Emphasis supplied) SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
20. The respondents were unable to show us anything different or contrary to this in the Payment of Gratuity Act. Although the respondents claimed that this Court has no jurisdiction at this juncture to get into the eligibility of payment of a gratuity to the applicant, for which the applicant should knock on the doors of the appropriate authority and seek payment of the gratuity relief under the Gratuity Act.
21. We are of the considered opinion that for a regular government employee who is otherwise covered under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, payment of gratuity is one of the retiral benefits.
Hence, it is a very relevant issue before us, and if we examine the provisions of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it clearly mentions inter-alia other things:
Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years.
And further in the same section at para (b) it mentions that: 'On his retirement or resignation, or '.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
22. It is a fact that the applicant has worked for more than 5 years, and his services were terminated due to resignation acceptance. Hence, his case is clearly covered by the Gratuity Act, and he was eligible to get a gratuity for the service rendered from the year 24.2.1987 to 2.7.1997. Although he had come knocking for the same very late, as the gratuity rights are conferred by a special statute, the respondents were equally bound to calculate and to pay the gratuity to the applicant on time. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents shall pay the gratuity to the applicant as due after calculating as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act for the time periods and years he actually worked. Although as for the delay, the applicant is equally guilty of not challenging his right on time; hence, we are of the considered opinion that he is not entitled to any interest on the said gratuity amount since he has approached belatedly before this Tribunal.
23. However, the applicant, at the time of discussions, agitated that his employer-employee relationship was severed after acceptance of his resignation on 2.7.1997 and by then 5th CPC benefits had not been calculated and disbursed, and the said benefit after the implementation SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE of 5th CPC should have been given to him as arrears at that point of time.
24. The respondents argued that they have given all dues to the applicant as per the rule, and they are not liable for any such arrears of pay difference because of 5th CPC benefits. Subsequently, the respondents also said that, based on the 5th CPC, whatever dues were there, were already given to the applicant.
25. Although before us, no documents are placed which may substantiate that actually 5th CPC implementation difference was paid to the applicant between 1.1.1996 to his date of acceptance of resignation on 2.7.1997 for which he was eligible. As he was eligible for the same, hence, we are of the considered view that the respondents, being the sovereign employer, should be bound to pay the said difference to the applicant. It was the duty of the employer to pay the said arrears as and when it became due after the implementation of the 5th CPC. Hence, they shall pay the said dues now, if not already paid. But as the applicant is equally responsible for the delay in knocking on the doors of this Tribunal, hence, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant may not be eligible for any interest on the said arrears.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore 2025.09.18 Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00644/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
26. With these observations, we pass the following orders:
The Original Application stands disposed of, directing the respondents to pay the Gratuity to which the applicant is entitled under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It is further directed to pay the arrears of salary for the period during which the applicant has worked after 5th Pay Commission came into force before his resignation after ascertaining if it was not already paid. No interest is granted to the applicant on the Gratuity amount or the pay arrears payable, since he has approached belatedly before this Tribunal.
Compliance shall be made expeditiously, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With these observations, the Original Application stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, are also disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Sv
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
2025.09.18
Y VIJU 14:36:16+05'30'