Karnataka High Court
O T Sethumadhavan vs The Union Of India on 19 November, 2010
Bench: N.Kumar, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE '19?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010. Q
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE3 MR.JUsT1(;EeN_.'KUMAE:'Iii "E: '-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIC'E
WRIT EETHION N0.52{;i45/2903 is--CAT) Vi:
BETWEEN:
Sri.O.'1'.Sethum.adh2tJan; _ .
S/0 Sri.K.Padnian.:1i)han,"'. _ "
Aged about so >%rs.;*"f_ ' * '
R/a No.2, 13*-'Vfl0'er;j,
'Sneha Maiisigijf', "fl;
1st cross, Na.nja;'mna"Lay T 1'1.~t,_ _ --
Manorayana Pzflyag"
RT.Nagar...V_B'anga1Qre..'f:3F3:(} . . . Petitioner
[by S7;'i."K,AG0\Tir1£lV§3raj", Aév)
1; V'Ur1i0%1--.0f;=India
Rep~.by'..--1ts Under Secretary to
Gbyernment of Indla,
Mirfistry of finance
(Dept.of Revenue}
3 North Block, New Delhi.
VA 25. The Assistant Commissioner,
Special Customs Prevention
Division, Kozhikod
Kallaj, PO, Caiicut-3.
3. The Comrnodors,
Indian Navy,
Bureau of Sailor
Cheetah Camp, Mankurd, _
Mumbai 400 088. : i'
4. The Ministry of Personnel; ._
Public Grievances and Pensions, ' V _ .
Dept.of Pension and Pensioners Welilare,'
IHF1oor, Lokanayak Bhavang'-..V " «
New Delhi 110 003}: _ 7
By the Director. 2 Respondents
{by Sri.M.K.Bop.ai?i..h;_' noose} M
This wm':i>c}r%itio}; 'Und'er'Artie1es 226 a 227 of
the Cons'titutio:;i of 1n<iia- .p'rayin'g*to' "quash the order passed
by the Hon'b}..e CAT, 'B__21:1_g-_c';.1ore in ()A.No.463/2001
dt.25.4.2_(«)O3'v*;;de Ar':n.'L.__ " __
This ap'otitie.nh.'-- oorning on for Hearing this day,
_ N.Kz,:z}nar 11., madethe foltowing:
ORDER
'' .__FiT11e.'pe3t_it:ioner has challenged in this writ petition the '\_order ~~ passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal "t"deoii'n_.ing to extend the benefit of pension by adding the i benefit of services rendered by him in the Navy for the purpose of extending the benefit of pension. V '
2. The petitioner joined the Indian Navy as Artificer Apprentice on IE-3.8.196}. He was discharged from 2.1.1975. He joined the Customs Department 1. day in the rank of Master Chief Ifie"'retireri=:fron1_:it Customs Department on 80.12.1981. ;fr1~..e' on 28.11.1988 in CA.N0.11O/'I993, vizhich me few ex~nava1 artificer ap1')rent1ces?'heic1_»that'thevfpergod of 4 years of naval artificer 'service for pension. The Lucknow ifentraliefxdnfinistrative Tribunal in dated 14.9.1998 held that the as superannuation for an .t1_'1eHSupreme Court decision supra the service in the Navy and Custon1s._Depaart:nent vtoriced out to be 20 years 4 months Since the petitioner's service was more than 1 light of the order passed by the Lucknow Ben-eh _of Tribunal, the petitioner submitted a it'4".V"';'epreser1tation to the 4"' respondent on 25.1.1999 seeking pensionary benefits. It was re}ectecE by an endorsement it .,,:.1.§1te<:1 10.1.2000 hoicling that he is not entitled to the benefit U .
the same'; fl'he4at;:th'orities, well as the Tribunal did not Zfconsider case of the petitioner in a proper perspective it provision especiedly Rule 19(1) and held because he did not iV"V"e§:ercise the option, he did. not repay the money, which he A "-recieivedflat the time of leaving Navy, he is not entitled to the "'--re_l.ie_f. In the facts and circumstances of this case, that I U:
I After leaving the services of Navy and on joining Custongs Department. he neither exercised the option nor money received. The reason is. as the law :"
period of service of apprentice was __not consideration for qualifying service after the judgment of the Apex 28.11. E996 such a right accrued Itkiis on 14.9.1998 the Lucknow of that even if a person resigns it,Vcot1l(i:ibe--treated'iasssuperannuation for all purposes light of this ciarificationflhyjy the Lucknow Bench the petitioirier_' for extending the said benefitito him; "hefiwould not have sought for and They have literally interpreted the approach is untenable. in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and in the light of the order of the Bench of the Tribunal, even if he has not exeroised :"
option for the aforesaid reasons, once the law has exercised the option, he is urilling money, which he received fronfthe tliie leaving the services. Therefore, the benefit of pension taking services in the Navy for qualifying ser\jiee».hfor fadrriittedly he completes 20 of justice.
In that View of the iollowirrg:
1)
2) is hereby set aside.
are directed to take into V the services of the petitioner in the it 19.8.1961 up to 2.1.1975 and thereafter, hisiservices from 2.1.1975 to 30.12.1981 in the Customs I)epartr11er'1t and as he completes 20 years grant the pension.
4} It is made clear, the petitioner shaii refund the amount, which he has received at the tiIIZit?~.::{}f leaving the Navy with interest at 12% 5' date of receipt of said amQ_unt__ tiii_--the" of payment. However, though the p€;_fi'tit)n€$£_iS~ Tr ' to the benefit of p€I1SiOI'i>:'fl"0{.}1 3(;)'.'12.198i1V: ihetwrgiilchi not be entitled to any interest on the-.,eixears.'0f pension.
5) If the pension is not fixed ands months from 'hf an carry interest at at}.-mi1i1;7_' ., V'
6) No costs.
i "~"iIudge Sci/-it Tudge