Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
G. Bhasi vs The Union Of India on 8 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 302 of 2010
Tuesday, this the 8th day of February, 2011
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
G. Bhasi, aged 60 years, S/o. Govinda Pillai, Rtd.
Security Officer Grade III, All India Radio Bangalore,
Residing at Thiruvathira House, Karalimukku P.O.,
Kollak-690 543. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr. P.C. Sebastian)
V e r s u s
1. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Superintending Engineer, SPT, All India Radio,
Yelehanka P.O., Bangalore-560064.
3. The Pay and Accounts Officer, All India Radio,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate - Mr. Millu Dandapani, ACGSC)
This application having been heard on 02.2.2011, the Tribunal on
08.02.2011 delivered the following:
O R D E R
The applicant has filed this OA for a declaration that the action on the part of the respondents in giving substantive appointment to him on his re- employment under them is illegal and that he is entitled to be treated as a temporary employee under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 with all benefits thereunder and for a direction to extend all benefits due to him under the provisions of Rule 10 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 for the period of service rendered by him.
2. The applicant after his voluntary retirement from the service of CRPF was re-employed as Security Officer under the All India Radio. After completion of 14 years of service he voluntarily retired from the service of All India Radio also but he was not granted pension and gratuity on the ground that he was already a pensioner of CRPF. The applicant submits that his claim for terminal benefits was rejected by the respondents without adverting to the relevant rules governing the matter. The applicant was re- employed by the respondents knowing the fact that he was drawing pension under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. On re-employment the applicant could not have been confirmed since there is no provision for it in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The CRPF being a para-military force the applicant is not entitled for pension under the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as in the case of re-employed military persons. Rule 18 of the said rules is also not applicable to him since he is not a civilian employee receiving invalid or compensatory or compassionate pension. The applicant could not have been confirmed in the re-employed service. He was given substantive appointment in the re-employed post in contravention of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant's re-employment under the respondents is covered by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The applicant is entitled to have retired as a temporary government servant and entitled to the benefits payable to a temporary government servant as per Rule 10 of the said rules.
3. In the reply statement the respondents submitted that at the time of his voluntary retirement from the services of AIR the applicant as a Security Officer-Grade III he had completed 14 years of service. His pension papers were forwarded to PAO, AIR, Chennai under Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, but as per Rule 7 of CCS (Pension) Rules, a government servant is not eligible for two pensions in the same service or post at the same time or by the same continuous service vide PAO, AIR, Chennai letter dated 7.9.2009. As the applicant is receiving pension from the CRPF he will not be entitled for a separate pension or gratuity for the period of his re- employment in the AIR. The applicant was given confirmation on his re- employment though there was no provision for it under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In view of the above the OA is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant Mr. P.C. Sebastian and learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr. Millu Dandapani, ACGSC and perused the records.
5. It is admitted fact that as per Rule 7 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 the applicant who was re-employed in the AIR and receiving pension from the CRPF is not entitled for a separate pension or gratuity for the period of his re-employment in the AIR. The submission of the applicant is that had he not been confirmed by the respondents he would have been eligible to get the terminal benefits payable to a temporary government servant as per Rule 10 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It is also admitted that the applicant has been confirmed by the respondents although there is no provision for it under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is not on record when the applicant was confirmed by the respondents. But after having got confirmed and having enjoyed the benefit of confirmation for a long period of time the applicant is estopped from demanding that declaration of giving substantive appointment to him on his re-employment was illegal. On finding that he is not eligible for pension from the respondents the applicant has placed this demand as an afterthought. If he was a temporary employee he would have got terminal benefits available to a temporary employee under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. But this late realization on the part of the applicant is of no help to him. If applicant had any objection to his being confirmed he should have raised it at the appropriate time before the competent authority.
6. Bereft of merit the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER "SA"