Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Rajender Nath Prasad vs Education on 22 April, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.501 of 2023
Orders reserved on : 10.04.2026
Orders pronounced on : 22.04.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Dr. Rajender Nath Prasad,
Aged 60 years,
S/o late Jagan Nath Prasad,
R/o Dudhline, Po-Shadipur,
Port Blair.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S. Sunil)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India, service through the Secretary to the Government
of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of
Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi -1.
2. The Lt. Governor (Administrator), Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Raj
Niwas, Port Blair-744101.
3. The Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair-
744 101.
4. The Principal Secretary (Education), Andaman & Nicobar
Administration, Port Blair - 744 101.
5. The Director of Education, Andaman & Nicobar Administration,
Directorate of Education, VIP Road, Port Blair - 744 103.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri R.K. Jain)
2026.04.24
RAVI KANOJIA
17:41:40
+05'30'
Item No.47/C-3 2 OA No.501/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
Initially, the present matter was instituted by the applicant as OA No.351/160/2015 before the Port Blair Circuit Sitting of the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal. During the pendency of the said OA, the applicant filed a Transfer Petition (PT No.209/2022), which was allowed by the Hon'ble Chairman vide Order dated 25.11.2022. Consequently, the matter was transferred to this Bench and, upon such transfer, was renumbered as OA No. 501/2023.
2. By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) An order / orders / direction / directions / directing the respondent authorities to grant Pro-rata pension benefits to the applicant for the service he rendered from 1976-1998.
b) An order / orders / direction / directions directing the respondent authorities to grant full pension to the applicant, who rendered his service for more than 22 years pensionable regular service and all the arrears with interest.
c) An Order to issue directing the respondents to produce the records of the case before this Hon'ble Tribunal so that conscious-
able justice may be done.
d) Costs and incidentals of the application may be awarded to the applicant.
e) Such other or further order direction or directions, as your lordships deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." FACTS OF THE CASE
3. Facts in brief, as stated by the applicant, are that he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 05.04.1976. Thereafter, he was appointed as Primary School Teacher in Education Department of Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair. On 11.08.1980, the 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 3 OA No.501/2023 applicant was appointed as a Graduate Trained Teacher and subsequently on 9.08.1983, he was appointed as a Post Graduate Trained Teacher (Annexure A-1 Collectively). 3.1 Sometime in 1995, an advertisement was published by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi to fill up the post of Principal on deputation basis. The applicant applied for the same through proper channel, which application of the applicant was forwarded by the Assistant Director (Admn), Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Directorate of Education to the Deputy Director (Prel), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi vide letter dated 22.2.1995. Thereafter, on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi issued an appointment letter dated 25.5.1995 addressed to the Asstt. Director (Admn.), Directorate of Education, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair with a copy to the applicant (Annexure A-2 Collectively). 3.2 Thereafter, the applicant was relieved by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration vide order dated 23.6.1995 on the terms and conditions of the deputation as notified in the said office of appointment and his lien will be kept for a period of two years on the post held by him with the said department with effect from 25.6.1995 (Annexure A-3). 3.3 Thereafter on 24.3.1998, the applicant wrote a letter to the Director of Education, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair, giving three months prior notice to accept Voluntary Retirement. It is stated by the applicant that vide order dated 13.07.1998, he was 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 4 OA No.501/2023 absorbed in the post of Principal in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (Annexure A-4 collectively).
3.4 Thereafter on 16.11.1998, the Assistant Director (Admn.) of A & N Administration, Directorate of Education written a letter to the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), A & N Administration, Port Blair requesting him to intimate whether any vigilance case is pending or contemplated against the applicant or not (Annexure A-5). 3.5 It is also stated by the applicant that he also participated in a selection process conducted by the UPSC for the post of Principle under the Directorate of Education, Andaman & Nicobar Administration. Accordingly, he got selected and on appointment order was issued on 23.11.1998 by the Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands appointing him to the post of Principal. Consequent to the said appointment letter, the applicant reported for duty on 24.11.1998 (Annexure A-6). 3.6 It is also stated that on 13.06.2000 the resignation tendered by the applicant from the post of PGT in the Education Department, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair was accepted w.e.f. 20.7.1998 by the authorities for his absorption to the Navodya Vidhalaya Samity vide letter dated 13.07.1998 and further stated therein that the applicant is allowed pro-rata retirement benefits in accordance with the instructions as laid down in the Govt. of India, Deptt. of Personal & AR OM dated 9.1.1984. The letter dated 06.11.2001 written by the Pay and Accounts Officer to the Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School asking him to resubmit the case of the applicant after fulfilling 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 5 OA No.501/2023 all the requirements mentioned in the said letter (Annexure A-7 collectively).
3.7 Despite the aforesaid letter of the Pay & Accounts Department to the Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Bakultala, when no action was taken, the applicant submitted a representation on 12.07.2003. In January 2004, the Pay and Accounts Department again wrote a letter to the said Principal to furnish certain information in order to settle the case of the applicant for pension. The Principal of the said School wrote a letter to the Director of Education, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair on 05.02.2004 requesting the authority to attend the points raised by the Pay and Accounts Officer, Rangat. On 16.03.2004, the Senior Accounts Officer-II of the Office of Chief Pay and Accounts Officer wrote a letter to the Pay and Accounts Officer, Rangat to examine the case of the applicant for pro-rata pension upon receiving sanction from the competent authority (Annexure A-8 collectively). 3.8 On 19.04.2004, a letter was written by the Assistant Director (Admn.) Directorate of Education, A&N Administration to the said Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Bakultala, Middle Andaman asking him to put up the case of the applicant for pension as early as possible so that pro-rata benefit can be extended to the applicant (Annexure A-9).
3.9 When nothing has been done, the applicant submitted representation on 15.06.2004 to the Pay and Accounts Officer, Rangat and Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 6 OA No.501/2023 Department of Personal and Training, New Delhi and Secretary to the Lt. Governor, Raj Niwas, Port Blair (Annexure A-10). 3.10 On 21/22.06.2004, Pay and Accounts Officer again raised new queries to the Principal, GSSS Bakultala. The applicant submitted the representation on 20.08.2004, which made the Assistant Director (Admn.) to write a letter to the Assistant Secretary (Education) on 03.11.2004 seeking certain clarification with regard to the issue of Pro- rata pension of the applicant. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration on 10.11.2004 asking him to take appropriate action to redress the grievance of the applicant. In order to clarify the issue, the Assistant Secretary (Education) wrote a letter to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi (Annexure A-11 Collectively). 3.11 When nothing happened, the applicant submitted a representation on 30.08.2005 to the Secretary (Education), A & N Administration, Port Blair. The Assistant Secretary (Education) again wrote a letter to the Ministry of Human Resource Development on 07.10.2005. There was however no reply. The Principal of GSSS, Bakultala, Middle Andaman requested the Assistant Director (Admn.) to provide suitable instruction to him in order to settle the Pro-rata pension case of the applicant. On 06.03.2006 a reply was received by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration from the under Secretary of Government of India wherein it was informed to the Andaman & 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 7 OA No.501/2023 Nicobar Administration that a government servant cannot earn two pensions in the same service or post at the same time or by the same continuous service. The applicant was not getting any response from the authorities and as such, he submitted another representation on 27.03.2006 to the Principal, GSSS, Bakultala, Middle Andaman. On 22.09.2006, the applicant was informed by the Principal, GSSS, Bakultala, Middle Andaman that he is not entitled to get Pro-rata pension. He repeated his representations on 22.03.2007 and 20.04.2007 (Annexure A-12 Collectively).
3.12 It is stated that the applicant was not satisfied with the said order and as such he submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to collect certain information with regard to the nature of post he was holding. He was informed vide letter dated 14.06.2007 that post of PGT and Principal comes under General Civil Service; however post of PGT is a Group-C Non Gazetted and Non Ministerial Post whereas the post of Principal is a Group-A Gazetted post. The review sought by the applicant vide his representation dated 27.04.2010 was rejected vide order dated 23.07.2010 by the Assistant Director (Admn.), Andaman & Nicobar Administration vide which also enclosing a letter dated 14.7.2010 issued by the Assistant Secretary (Edu.) Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Secretariat (Annexure A-13 Collectively). 3.13 It is also stated that the applicant thought of approaching the court of law but he decided to collect all the relevant information before approaching the court of law 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 8 OA No.501/2023 3.14 It is further stated that the applicant procured a certificate issued by the Director of Education on 29.08.2011, which reflects the details of his service. Therefore, the applicant submitted few more representations on 27.04.2012 and 27.06.2012 annexing all the documents and even the Government of India's order dated 09.01.1984. Upon receiving the said information, the Assistant Director (Admn.) on 26.07.2012 wrote a representation to the Assistant Secretary (Education) requesting him to examine the case of the applicant again. However, the Assistant Secretary (Education) refused to re-examine the case of the applicant which is reflected in the letter dated 28.08.2012. The applicant represented the issue before the Lieutenant Governor on 26.05.2014. The Andaman & Nicobar Administration submitted fresh representation to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi on 03.06.2014. As no response came from the authorities concerned, the Assistant Director (Admn.) wrote a letter to the Assistant Secretary (Education) on 12.06.2014. Again the applicant submitted a representation on 16.03.2015 which is still pending (Annexure A-14 collectively). 3.15 The applicant also stated that by virtue of the Office Memorandum dated 09.01.1994, the Government of India has clarified the issue relating to pro-rata retirement benefits. It has been clarified that Central Government Employees, who go to Public Sector Undertakings / Autonomous bodies under the State Government in response to the open advertisement and subsequently get absorbed, will be eligible for Pro-rata benefits in terms of the above OM from the date 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 9 OA No.501/2023 of their permanent absorption. The applicant claims that he is entitled to Pro rata benefit of pension on the basis of Office Memorandum of Government of India and also on the basis of the fact that the authorities did not grant any benefit to the applicant for serving the department as Post Graduate Teacher. It is also stated that the applicant has been working in Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Education department since 1976. The service rendered by the applicant from 1976-1998 in the posts of LGC, PST, GTT and Post Graduate Teacher respectively and thereafter as Principal of Education department w.e.f. 23.11.1998 cannot be said to be a continued service. For about four months and four days, there exists discontinuation of service from 20.07.1998 to 23.11.1998 and from 03.11.1998 to 23.11.1998, the applicant was nowhere in job. Moreover, the period of service of the applicant from 1976-1998 has not been considered by the authorities while deciding the issue of pro-rata pension of the applicant. Beside that, the applicant was not in any job from 03.11.1998 to 23.11.1998. The result is that there was a break in service. The applicant was retired on 01.11.2014 from the post of Deputy Director (Education), Andaman & Nicobar Administration. 3.16 Hence, he has filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicant. The applicant also filed his rejoinder to the said reply.
2026.04.24
RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40
+05'30'
Item No.47/C-3 10 OA No.501/2023
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant, while reiterating the facts as stated in the Original Application, has vehemently contended that the action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal and bad both in law and on facts; as the applicant was initially appointed as a Lower Grade Clerk on 05.04.1976 and was subsequently appointed as Primary School Teacher on 23.10.1979 in the Education Department of the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair. Thereafter, the applicant was duly promoted as Graduate Trained Teacher on 11.08.1980 and further as Post Graduate Trained Teacher on 19.08.1983. The applicant, upon due selection, was appointed on deputation to the post of Principal in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi vide order dated 25.05.1995, and was accordingly relieved by the parent department on 23.06.1995 in terms of the conditions of deputation. During the period of deputation, the applicant opted to continue in the borrowing organization and, accordingly, submitted an application dated 24.03.1998 seeking voluntary retirement from the post of PGT, subject to his absorption in the Samiti. Upon issuance of the absorption order dated 13.07.1998 by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, the applicant requested for premature retirement from the parent department w.e.f. 20.07.1998.
5.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the resignation tendered by the applicant was ultimately accepted w.e.f. 20.07.1998, and vide order dated 14.06.2000, as such he was held entitled to pro-rata 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 11 OA No.501/2023 retirement benefits in terms of Government of India O.M. dated 09.01.1984. Despite the aforesaid clear entitlement, the respondents failed to process and release the pro-rata pensionary benefits, and instead kept the matter pending on one pretext or the other by raising repeated queries. The Pay and Accounts authorities, as well as the departmental officers were actively processing the case between 2001- 2004, thereby acknowledging the applicant's entitlement, yet no final decision was taken. The applicant was constrained to submit repeated representations before various authorities, including the Pay and Accounts Officer, the Ministry of Personnel, and even the office of the Lt. Governor, however, no effective relief was granted. The rejection of review vide order dated 23.07.2010 are arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to settled legal position 5.2 Learned counsel argued that the rejection of the claim of the applicant by the respondents wrongly by relying upon the clarification dated 06.03.2006 by stating that a government servant cannot earn two pensions, whereas the applicant is not claiming dual pension but only pro-rata benefits for the past service rendered under the parent department. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant continued to pursue the matter by submitting representations in the years 2012, 2014 and 2015, but the respondents failed to take a final, reasoned decision, thereby causing grave prejudice. Even under the Right to Information Act, the applicant was informed that the posts held by him belong to different categories (Group 'C' and Group 'A'), thereby supporting the contention that the services cannot be treated as one 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 12 OA No.501/2023 continuous service. The applicant had rendered long and qualifying service from 1976 to 1998 under the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, which has not been taken into consideration while deciding his pensionary benefits.
5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that as per the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 09.01.1994, employees who are absorbed in autonomous bodies through open selection are entitled to pro-rata retirement benefits from the date of absorption, and the case of the applicant squarely falls within the said policy. There exists a clear break in service from 20.07.1998 to 23.11.1998, and therefore, the bar relating to "same continuous service" is not applicable in the present case. The applicant ultimately retired on 01.11.2014 from the post of Deputy Director (Education), without being granted the legitimate pro- rata pensionary benefits for his past service. 5.4 Learned counsel thus argued that the inaction and refusal on the part of the respondents amount to violation of the applicant's legal and fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. As such, the impugned action of the respondents is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, and liable to be set aside, and the applicant is entitled to grant of pro-rata pensionary benefits along with all consequential benefits.
STAND OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3, 4 AND 5
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 submitted that the instant applicant, Dr. Rajendra Nath Prasad, is a retired Government servant, who got retired under VRS from the 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 13 OA No.501/2023 post of Deputy Director of Education on 01.11.2014, when he was attached with the Directorate of Education, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair.
6.1 It is further submitted that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Lower Grade Clerk (LGC) vide Administration Order No. 1244 dated 03.04.1976, and thereafter he got his appointment as Primary School Teacher (PST) under the Education Department, Andaman & Nicobar Administration vide Order No. 853 dated 20.08.1979. Consequently, he had resigned from the post of LGC and had joined the new post of PST on 23.10.1979 (Annexure-R-1 (Collectively)).
6.2 It is also submitted that the instant applicant was again considered by the department for his appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (GTT) vide Directorate of Education Office Order No. 936 dated 07.08.1980, and subsequently, the department again considered his appointment against the post of Senior Teacher on ad-hoc basis up to 31.07.1984 vide Office Order No. 2299 dated 19.10.1983 and the service of the applicant was confirmed in the post of Senior Teacher vide Office Order No. 1239 dated 1992 (Annexure-R- 2 (Collectively)).
6.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant was selected for the post of Principal in JNVS, Malhar, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh on deputation for a period of 02 years vide letter dated 25.05.1995 and he was relieved from the post of Senior Teacher on 24.06.1995 vide Directorate's Office Order No. 2176 dated 23.06.1995, and he joined the 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 14 OA No.501/2023 newly selected post of Principal in JNVS, Malhar, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh (Annexure-R-3 (Collectively)). Further, the applicant was absorbed in the post of Principal in JNVS, Malhar, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh on regular basis vide letter dated 13.07.1998. The Directorate of Education, Andaman & Nicobar Administration has accepted his technical resignation from the post of Post Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 20.07.1998 (F/N) vide DE's Office Order No. 2572 dated 13.06.2000 (Annexure-R-4).
6.4 Learned counsel further submitted that on qualifying the interview conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the post of Principal (Group 'A'), the instant applicant was appointed to the post of Principal (Group 'A') in the scale of pay of Rs.10,000-325- 15,200 vide Administration Office Order No. 3849 dated 23.11.1998, and he reported for duty on 24.11.1998 (Annexure-R-5). 6.5 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant has submitted several representations before the Education Department to settle and release pro-rata pension benefits to him for the service rendered from 1976 to 1998, lastly up to the post of PGT. In this regard, it is submitted that the proposal for sanction of pro-rata pension to the applicant was earlier examined in consultation with the Finance Department and Personnel Department of the Administration and, as per their advice, the case of the applicant was referred to the Government of India, MHRD. The Government of India, MHRD vide letter dated 06.03.2006 clarified that as per the provisions of Rule 7 (1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, a Government servant shall not earn two pensions in the 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 15 OA No.501/2023 same service or post at the same time or by the same continuous service. The same has been conveyed by the Administration to the Directorate of Education, Port Blair vide letters dated 27.06.2006 and 14.06.2010, and was communicated to the applicant vide letters dated 23.07.2010 and 26.12.2012.
6.6 Learned counsel further submitted that the Administration has examined the case and referred the same to the Ministry of Human Resource Development vide letter dated 03.06.2014 for clarification, and the case of the applicant is still pending with the Administration as well as with the Ministry of Human Resource Development awaiting further clarification (Annexure R-6).
6.7 Learned counsel also submitted that previously the case of the applicant was referred to the Director of Accounts & Budget, Pay and Accounts Office, Port Blair for settlement of pro-rata pension benefits vide Directorate's letter dated 22.05.2008. In response, the Pay and Accounts Office informed vide letter dated 13.06.2008 that no pro-rata pension benefits had been paid to the applicant and all such benefits stood cancelled (Annexure-R-7 (Collectively)). 6.8 Learned counsel has admitted that the case of the applicant is still pending with the Administration and the Ministry of Human Resource Development as per letter dated 03.06.2014. Further, it is submitted that the Directorate of Education repeatedly referred the case to the Administration, Government of India, MHRD and Pay & Accounts Office, but the claim could not be accepted and was rejected.
2026.04.24
RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40
+05'30'
Item No.47/C-3 16 OA No.501/2023
6.9 It is reiterated that the Government of India, MHRD vide letter
dated 06.03.2006 clarified that under Rule 7(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, a Government servant cannot earn two pensions in the same service or continuous service. The Pay and Accounts Officer has also denied pro-rata pension. However, it is stated in the reply that the case may be referred again to the Administration for re-examination and further reference to the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, Government of India, for necessary concurrence. If found eligible, sanction of pro-rata pension for the period from 05.04.1976 to 19.07.1998 may be issued, as in terms Government of India O.M. dated 09.01.1984, pro-rata pension requires prior concurrence of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms. Further, the applicant held a Group 'C' post from 05.04.1976 to 19.07.1998 and thereafter joined a Group 'A' post after a gap of about four months. His technical resignation w.e.f. 20.07.1998 and subsequent joining on 24.11.1998 resulted in discontinuity of service, and hence Rule 7(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules applies.
7. In rebuttal to the aforesaid reply, the applicant has filed rejoinder and by referring to the same, learned counsel besides reiterating the above contentionS submitted that the applicant joined the post of PST on 23.10.1979. Learned counsel also submitted that the leave salary and pension contribution to the parent department was sent regularly every month from JNVS to PAO, Rangat, even after three years. Further, the applicant was never absorbed to the post of Principal, JNVS, Malhar, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh. He had, in fact, 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 17 OA No.501/2023 joined the said post through direct selection. For the said reason, he was not paid any pay protection. He was brought down from the salary of Rs.10,975/- to Rs.10,000/-, i.e., the initial basic pay of the Principal's post. Technical resignation was accepted when the applicant had already joined back the Directorate of Education, Port Blair through direct selection by UPSC. He was not given any pay protection and there was a break in service. The applicant was not in employment for 21 days. 7.1 It is stated that the Union Public Service Commission conducted the selection process for the post of Principal (Group 'A') and after participating in the said selection process, the applicant was appointed to the said post. The post of Principal in the Directorate of Education is a Group 'A' post, whereas the post held earlier by the applicant was a Group 'C' non-gazetted post.
7.2 It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant was not falling under Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, pro-rata pension was to be accepted under the O.M. dated 09.01.1984. The pro- rata settlement of Mr. Bangruswamy, Principal of JNV, was settled within three months, who had also taken voluntary retirement at the same time when the applicant had taken. It is pertinent to mention that the Department of Education was waiting for the applicant to be selected for the post of Principal in Andaman & Nicobar Administration to settle the issue of pro-rata pension, whereas it should have been settled within three months. It is further submitted that the applicant neither joined back after direct selection through UPSC in the same service or post at the same time, nor in the same continuous service. He 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 18 OA No.501/2023 joined a higher Group 'A' post, which is not a continuation of the same service or post.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
9. It emerges from the record that the applicant was initially appointed as a Lower Grade Clerk on 05.04.1976 under the Andaman & Nicobar Administration. He was subsequently appointed as Primary School Teacher on 23.10.1979, after resigning from the post of Lower Grade Clerk. Thereafter, he was appointed as Graduate Trained Teacher in August, 1980 and later as Post Graduate Teacher (Senior Teacher) in 1983, and his services were confirmed in the said post. Subsequently, the applicant was selected for the post of Principal in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya on deputation basis and was relieved from his parent department on 23.06.1995 to join the said post. The applicant was absorbed in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti as Principal vide order dated 13.07.1998. The applicant tendered technical resignation from the post of Post Graduate Teacher, which was accepted w.e.f. 20.07.1998 by the parent department. The applicant was subsequently selected through the Union Public Service Commission for the post of Principal (Group 'A') under the Andaman & Nicobar Administration and joined the said post on 24.11.1998. There was a gap between 20.07.1998 and 24.11.1998, during which the applicant was not serving under the Andaman & Nicobar Administration. The applicant continued in service thereafter and ultimately retired on 01.11.2014 from the post of Deputy Director (Education). The applicant has made repeated 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 19 OA No.501/2023 representations seeking grant of pro-rata pensionary benefits for the service rendered from 05.04.1976 to 19.07.1998. The respondents have considered the claim of the applicant at various stages and referred the matter to higher authorities, including the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. The Government of India, vide communication dated 06.03.2006, clarified that a Government servant cannot earn two pensions in the same service or by the same continuous service in terms of Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondents have not granted pro-rata pension to the applicant and have rejected/kept the claim pending based on the aforesaid clarification. The case of the applicant has remained under consideration at different levels, including the Administration and the Ministry, and no final pensionary benefit for the period 1976-1998 has been released.
10. In light of the pleadings, submissions, and admitted facts, the following issues arise for consideration before this Tribunal:
(i) Whether the applicant, who tendered technical resignation from the post of Post Graduate Teacher upon his absorption/selection to another post, is entitled to grant of pro-rata pensionary benefits for the service rendered from 05.04.1976 to 19.07.1998?
(ii) Whether the case of the applicant is hit by Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on the ground that a Government servant cannot earn two pensions in the same service or by the same continuous service?
2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 20 OA No.501/2023
(iii) Whether the movement of the applicant from the Andaman & Nicobar Administration to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and thereafter his appointment through UPSC constitutes "same service/continuous service" or amounts to a distinct and separate service, thereby entitling him to pro-rata pension?
(iv) Whether the Office Memorandum dated 09.01.1984 (and subsequent clarifications) governing grant of pro-rata pension on absorption in autonomous bodies is applicable to the case of the applicant?
(v) Whether the existence of a break in service between 20.07.1998 and 24.11.1998 has any legal effect on the applicant's entitlement to pro-rata pensionary benefits?
(vi) Whether the repeated consideration of the applicant's case by the respondents and their failure to take a final decision amounts to arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
(vii)Whether the rejection of the applicant's claim vide communications dated 22.09.2006 and 23.07.2010 is legally sustainable, being in conformity with applicable rules, executive instructions, and settled law?
11. With regard to issues (i) & (iv), as mentioned in para 10 above, i.e., whether the applicant, who tendered technical resignation from the post of Post Graduate Teacher upon his absorption/selection to another post, is entitled to grant of pro-rata pensionary benefits for 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 21 OA No.501/2023 the service rendered from 05.04.1976 to 19.07.1998 and whether the Office Memorandum dated 09.01.1984 (and subsequent clarifications) governing grant of pro-rata pension on absorption in autonomous bodies is applicable to the case of the applicant, we find that the core of the dispute revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to pro- rata pension upon leaving the parent department and joining another organization.
11.1 We observe that the Government of India O.M. dated 09.01.1984 clearly provides for extension of pro-rata pensionary benefits to a permanent government servant on absorption in a state public sector undertaking/state autonomous body/ joint sector undertaking w.e.f. 09.01.1984. In the present case, it is not disputed that the applicant applied through proper channel and he was relieved to join the said post on deputation. His resignation was treated as technical resignation as evident from the record. The order dated 13.06.2000 (Annexure A-7) itself recognizes entitlement to pro-rata benefits. The contents of the said letter is reproduced as under:-
"The resignation tendered by Shri R.N. Prasad, from the post of PGT in the Education Department, A & N Administration, Port Blair as a technical formality is hereby accepted with effect from 20/7/98 (FN) for his absorption to the Navodya Vidhalaya Samiti vide Deputy Director (Perl), Navodhaya Vidhayalaya Samiti, New Delhi Letter No. F.1-3/98- NVS/(Perl) dated 13/7/98."
11.2 Therefore, prima facie, the applicant falls within the policy framework of the said O.M. Further, settled law consistently holds that Technical resignation does not forfeit past service. It preserves pensionary benefits subject to rules. Thus, denial of pro-rata pension 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 22 OA No.501/2023 despite acknowledging technical resignation appears contrary to the executive instructions.
11.3 It is also apt to note here that Directorate of Education, A & N Administration, Port Blair vide letter dated 19.4.2004 (Annexure A-
9) specifically recorded that :
"As per Pension rule and GOI's DPTAR UO No.2106/pension unit/84 dated 9.5.84, Dr. R.N. Prasad is eligible for Pro-rata pension benefit from 5.4.97 - 19.7.1998. The Sr. AO-II, office of the Chief Pay and Account Officer has also recommended this case for pro-rata pension case."
11.4 It is also relevant to refer to the OM dated 29.8.1984 on the subject of Mobility of personnel between Central Government Deparments and Autonomous Bodies - Counting of service for pension, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
3. This matter has been considered carefully and the President has now been pleased to decide that the case of Central Government employees going over to a Central autonomous body or vice-versa and employees of the Central autonomous body moving to another Central autonomous body may be regulated as per the following provisions:-
(a) In case of Autonomous Bodies where Pension Scheme is in operation.
(i) Where a Central Government employee borne on pensionable establishment is allowed to be absorbed in an autonomous body, the services rendered by him under the Government shall be allowed to be counted towards pension under the autonomous body irrespective of whether the employee was temporary or permanent in Government. The pensionary benefits will, however, accrue only if the temporary service is followed by confirmation. If he retires as a temporary employee in the autonomous body, he will get terminal benefits as are normally available to temporary employees under the Government. The same procedure will apply in the case of employee of the autonomous bodies who are permanently absorbed under the Central Government.
The Government/autonomous body will discharge its pension liability by paying in lumpsum as a one-time payment, the pro-rata pension/service gratuity/terminal gratuity and DCRG for the service upto the date of absorption in the autonomous 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 23 OA No.501/2023 body/Government, as the case may be. Lumpsum amount of the pro-rata pension will be determined with reference to commutation table laid down in CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, as amended from time to time."
(emphasis supplied) 11.5 Thus, the issues (i) and (iv) are answered accordingly in favour of the applicant.
12. With regard to issues (ii) & (iii) as mentioned in para 10 above, i.e., whether the case of the applicant is hit by Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on the ground that a Government servant cannot earn two pensions in the same service or by the same continuous service and whether the movement of the applicant from the Andaman & Nicobar Administration to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and thereafter his appointment through UPSC constitutes "same service/continuous service" or amounts to a distinct and separate service, thereby entitling him to pro-rata pension, it emerges from the records that the respondents rely heavily on Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which bars earning two pensions in the same service or continuous service for rejection of the applicant's claim for pro-rata pension. However, we find that the applicant is not claiming two pensions. Rather, he is claiming only pro-rata pension for past service rendered by him admittedly during the period from 1976 to 1998 under the respondents and regular pension for later service. Now the question arises whether both services constitutes same continuous service. However, the key distinguishing factors are that first service rendered by the applicant from 1976 to 1998 as Group 'C' under A & N Administration and secondly, as Principal in NVS (autonomous body) 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 24 OA No.501/2023 and later, he was appointed as Principal (Group 'A') via UPSC, i.e., different recruitment process under the A & N Administration and admittedly, there was a also gap in service. There exists technical resignation and change in employer. Therefore, the said period of services cannot be treated as same continuous service, which is a pre- condition for invoking the provisions of Rule 7(1) of the Rules ibid. Hence, reliance on Rule 7(1) of the Rules ibid in not tenable in the eyes of law. Thus, above two issues are also answered in favour of the applicant.
13. With regard to issue (v), as mentioned in para 10 above, i.e., whether the existence of a break in service between 20.07.1998 and 24.11.1998 has any legal effect on the applicant's entitlement to pro- rata pensionary benefits, we find that the respondents themselves admit that there was a gap between 20.07.1998 to 24.11.1998. The applicant further asserts that he was not in employment for part of this period. The legal implication of the same is a break in service, disrupts continuity. Once continuity is broken, the bar of "same continuous service" under Rule 7(1) of the Rules ibid weakens. Thus, the break in service supports the applicant's case of pro - rata pension, rather than defeating it. As such, this issue is answered in favour of the applicant.
14. With regard to issue (vi), as mentioned in para 10 above, i.e., whether the repeated consideration of the applicant's case by the respondents and their failure to take a final decision amounts to arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it is evident from the records that the matter remained pending 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 25 OA No.501/2023 from 2000 to 2015 and beyond. Although authorities repeatedly raised queries and referred the matter, however, they had failed to take a final decision. Even more significantly, at one stage, pro-rata entitlement was acknowledged, as quoted above, yet, it was later denied without proper reasoning. Such conduct reflects non-application of mind, Administrative indecision, and unreasonable delay. This is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This issue is answered accordingly.
15. With regard to issue (vii), as mentioned in para 10 above, i.e., whether the rejection of the applicant's claim vide communications dated 22.09.2006 and 23.07.2010 is legally sustainable, being in conformity with applicable rules, executive instructions, and settled law, the said rejection orders dated 22.09.2006 and 23.07.2010 are liable to be tested on two counts, i.e., whether they are reasoned orders and whether while passing the same, they considered the O.M. dated 09.01.1984, nature of resignation and break in service. Having regard to the pleadings on record, we find that these orders are cryptic and non- speaking, as sole reliance is placed on Rule 7(1) of the Rules ibid without proper examination of the applicant's case. It is settled law that administrative orders affecting rights must be reasoned and speaking. Hence, the rejection orders suffer from legal infirmity.
16. The sum and substance of above findings is that the applicant satisfies the conditions of O.M. dated 09.01.1984. Rule 7(1) of the Rules ibid is not applicable due to absence of dual pension claims, lack of continuous service, the break in service strengthens the applicant's 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 26 OA No.501/2023 claim. The respondents' action is arbitrary, legally unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence.
17. It is apt to mention that the pension is not a bounty, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases, including in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] by D.A. Desai, J. who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: (SCC pp. 319-20, paras 18-20)
"18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service?
19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition.
20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC 330 : 1971 Supp SCR 634] wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh [(1976) 2 SCC 1 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 172 : (1976) 2 LLJ 377] ."
It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away 2026.04.24 RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40 +05'30' Item No.47/C-3 27 OA No.501/2023 without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India."
18. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the present OA is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for grant of pro-rata pension for the services rendered by him from the period from 05.04.1976 to 20.07.1998 and pass a reasoned and speaking order;
(ii) Since the claim of the applicant pertains to the grant of pro-
rata pension for the said period, and he was wrongly deprived of the same due to an erroneous interpretation, the applicant is also entitled to interest thereon at the rate applicable to GPF.; and
(iii) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
19. Pending MA(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
20. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2026.04.24
RAVI KANOJIA 17:41:40
+05'30'