Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Sri. B V Dambal on 25 March, 2013
Author: Dilip B Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B Bhosale
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.72872/2012 [S-CAT]
BETWEEN
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
KARNATAKA CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
NORTH KARNATAKA REGION
DHARWAD-580 001
4. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL)
BG GPO COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560 001
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS
BAGALKOT DIVISION
BAGALKOT-587 101 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M B KANAVI, ADVOCATE)
:2:
AND
Sri B V DAMBAL
AGE: 61 YEARS
S/O. VAMAN RAO
[RETD. GR-D BAGALKOT HO]
R/AT NO.168, KILLA, 60TH LANE
BAGALKOT-587 101 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A.T.SAVANUR, ADV.,) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.17.09.2012 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN OA NO.89/2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
PC:
This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short), Bangalore, in O.A. No.89/2012 allowing the said application filed by the respondent and directing the appellant to sanction the pension payable to the respondent by granting five days grace to his service.
2) It is an undisputed fact that the respondent was employed as Extra Departmental Mail Courier ('EDMC' for short) or Grameena Dak Sevak in the year :3: 1973. He worked as such till 20.03.2001, on which date, he was appointed on adhoc basis as Group 'D' employee in the postal department. On a permanent basis he was appointed with effect from 20.11.2001 as Group 'D' employee. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.03.2011.
After retirement, his pension was not fixed though other monetary benefits were given to him. Therefore, the respondent filed several representations to the postal authorities seeking fixation of pension. However, the authorities rejected the prayer of the respondent on the ground that he had not completed the qualifying period of service, namely, 10 years to became eligible for payment of pension as per Rules 49(2) of Central Civil Services Pension Rules (for short, 'Pension Rules'). Aggrieved by the said rejection, the respondent filed application before the CAT.
3) As noticed supra, the CAT by the impugned order, directed the petitioners to grant pension payable to the applicant by granting five days grace to the :4: service rendered by him in terms of Sub-Rule(3) of Rules 49 of Pension Rules. The said order is being challenged by the postal authorities before this Court in this writ petition.
4) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the impugned order and other annexures.
5) The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has not completed the qualifying period of service to became entitle for payment of pension as required by Rule 49 of Pension Rules. This submission is made on the basis that the petitioner though worked in the postal department from the year 1973, the said service was temporary and extra-departmental service and not regular service and that he was appointed as Group 'D' employee only in November 2001 and from that date upto the date of his retirement on 31.03.2011, he had hardly completed 9 years, 4 months and 9 days, which :5: was short of 10 years as required by Rule 49(1) of the Pension Rules. The Tribunal considering this contention raised by the department has held that the documents on record indicate that he was appointed on adhoc basis as Group 'D' employee on 20.03.2001 and on regular basis with effect from 06.07.2001 and on that basis, the Tribunal held that the eligible service put-in by the respondent was 9 years, 8 months and 25 days. According to the Tribunal, the shortage was hardly 3 months 5 days. The Tribunal was of the opinion that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities should have exercised the discretion of granting relaxation. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal directed the authorities to fix the pension payable to the applicant.
6) No doubt, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 49 of the Pension Rules, for getting the benefit of pension, the required minimum qualifying service would be 10 years. Sub-rule (3) states that in calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year namely, three :6: months and above shall be treated as complete one half (½) year for the purpose of calculating qualifying service. In the case on hand, even if the appointment of the respondent in Group 'D' cadre is taken as 06.07.2001, as on 31.03.2011 he had put-in total service of 9 years 5 months and 24 days. Fraction of 5 months is taken as ½ year then the total length of service would be 9½ years. If the date of his appointment as Group 'D' on adhoc basis is considered, his total service would be more than 10 years. In fact, Annexure-A3, the correspondence dated 21.11.2011 from the office of the Post Master, Bagalkot, clearly indicates that the respondent was promoted to the post of Group 'D' with effect from 06.07.2001. The word 'Promotion' indicates that the respondent was promoted from the lower Cadre to Senior Cadre. If that is accepted, the total length of service put-in by the respondent would be more than 10 years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the total length of service put-in by the respondent, in :7: our considered opinion, the authorities are not justified in declining to grant pension to the respondent. In fact, in an identical matter, this Court in W.P. No.8166/2011 while considering a case of a person appointed as Grameena Dak Sevak and subsequently promoted to a post in Group 'D', has held that the employee is entitled for the pension as per the Pension Rules. In the said case, noticing the attitude adopted by the Union of India in declining to grant pension and questioning the decision rendered by the CAT before the High Court, this Court has imposed exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Union of India . In the said decision, this Court has referred to the fact that similar matter decided by the CAT, Madras Bench, was affirmed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court and when the matter was carried to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India. This clearly indicates that similarly placed employees have been granted the benefit of pension. Therefore, we find no justifiable grounds on the part of :8: the authorities to deny the pension to the respondent herein. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The appellants shall take steps to fix the pension of the respondent and to disburse the arrears.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*