Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shashi Pal Rao vs D/O Post on 24 December, 2024
Reserved on 05TH December, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Original Application No. 1151 of 2018
Allahabad this the 24th day of December, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Shashi Pal Rao Son of Late Vijay Bahadur Rao, A/a 45 years, Resident of
Village Ganiyari, Post Madanpur, District Deoria, U.P.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Amresh Kumar Tiwari
Versus
1. Union of India Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Director Postal Accounts, U.P. Zone, Sector-D, Aliganj, Lucknow,
226024.
3. Senior Accountant (Pension), Office of Director Postal Account U.P.
Zone, Sector District Aliganj Lucknow 226024.
4. Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, 273001.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices, Deoria division, Deoria 274001.
Respondents
By Advocates: Shri V.K. Shukla
Shri S.C. Mishra
ORDER
The applicant has filed the O.A under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking the relief as follows: -
1) Quash the Impugned order dated 05.06.18 passed by respondent no. 3 and impugned order dated 25.06.18 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure No. A-1 and A-2).
MANISH MEHROTRA 2) direct to the respondents to accord the approval of pension and other benefits to the applicant.
3) To grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2
4) To award the cost in favour of the applicant.
2. It is the case of applicant that he was appointed as Postal Assistant in the Postal department on 17.01.1993. Applicant transferred from Delhi to Deoria on 22.09.1999. Senior Post Master Deoria by his letter dated 11.06.2003 gave permission to fill the form for the post of Lecturer. Applicant was selected on the post of Lecturer. The Senior Post Master by his letter dated 21.08.2006 gave no objection in reliving the applicant. Applicant selected on the post of Lecturer and he gave his resignation on 25.05.2007 and the Senior Post master by his order dated 28.05.2007 accepted the resignation of applicant. The applicant has rendered his services in postal department about 13 years, 04 months and 12 days. On 14.10.2016, applicant has given a representation to respondents' department for payment of his pension. The respondent no. 5 i.e. Superintendent of Post Office, Deoria wrote a letter dated 04.10.2017 to respondent no. 3 Accountant (Pension), Office of Director Postal Account U.P. Z District, Aliganj, Lucknow, 226024 regarding demand of applicant and forwarded his application. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Senior Accountant (Pension), Office of Director Postal Account UP Zone, Sector District, Aliganj, Lucknow, 226024 raised some objection by his letter dated 07 11.2017 and respondent no. 5 i.e. Superintendent of Post Office, Deoria Division Deoria by his letter dated 23.11.2017 gave a reply and again forwarded pension papers of applicant. The respondent no. 3 wrote a letter to respondent no. 5 to amend his earlier order dated 28.05.2007, but respondent no. 5 has not passed any order in this regard. The applicant has filed several representations and applications before higher authority. Thereafter, impugned orders dated 05.06.2018 and 25.06.2018 have been passed by the respondents. It is claimed by the MANISH MEHROTRA applicant that his case is covered under Rule 26 (2) of CCS (Pension) rules, 1972. The Rule 49 (2) of CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 is also applicable in the case of applicant. The applicant has cited the Paragraph no. 4 and 13 of Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2016(13) 3 SCC 797 Asger Ibrahim Amin vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India. The applicant further relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024(2) ESC 193 (SC) Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora vs. State of Gujrat and ors. The applicant also relying upon paragraph 3 at page 3 of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5076, State of West Bengal vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and ors. Aggrieved with the action of respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
3. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the applicant Shri Shashipal Rao was selected in the Postal Department in Postal Asstt. cadre in Delhi circle on 17.01.1994. He joined as Postal Assistant in the Department on 17.01.1994 and worked there upto 22.07.1999. Then he applied for his transfer under Rule-38 for Deoria Dn. (UP) and after transfer, he assumed his duty in Deoria HO on 24.07-1999 and worked as Postal Assistant till 29.05.2007. In the mean time, he applied for the Post of Lecturer, which was published by U.P. Madhyamik. Siksha Sewa Chayan Board Allahabad after obtaining Permission from the Sr. Postmaster Deoria on 11.06.2003, but he did not inform to the competent authority i.e. the then SSPOs Deoria nor applied for his permission. Consequently, he was selected as a Lecturer, and submitted his resignation application on 25.05-2007 (copy enclosed as Annexure CA-1), which was accepted by the SSPOs Deoria vide letter No. B- 525 Deoria dated 28.05.2007 with the conditions reproduced below:-
1. He will not come back in Native Deptt.
MANISH 2. He will not be entitled for pension and gratuity from the Deptt. MEHROTRA of Posts.
3. If any dues of the Department are pending against him, will be paid in future also at once.
4The applicant had not submitted technical resignation and relinquished the change of his post on 29.05.2007 and definitely he would have relinquished the charge of his post after having thorough knowledge of conditions mentioned in the letter accepting his resignation that he would not be entitled for any pension etc. from the respondent's Department. Here it is also to mention that every official, including the applicant, (who had been working in the Department since 1993 to 29.05.2007) is having a good knowledge of Departmental Rules and Regulations. It is significant to mention here that the applicant kept mum on the issue for near about 10 years and after a lapse of such huge gap, he suddenly sent an application for pensionary benefits on the basis of service rendered in the Department of Posts. Even then, his pension papers were forwarded to the Director of Postal Accounts (Respondent No. 2) vide SPOs Deoria letter No.C-1/500/2017-18/ Deoria dated 04.10.2017. After careful consideration of the case, the claim of the applicant was refused by Respondent No. 2, keeping in view the conditions mentioned in the SPOS Deoria letter No. B-525 Deoria dated 28.05.2007 (annexed as Annexure-CA-3) vide which the resignation was accepted. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant accepted the above letter dated 28.05.2007 (CA-3) without tendering any objection on aforesaid conditions (Sl.no.01 to 03) which clearly establishes that all the three conditions were accepted by the applicant at that time, but now he is submitting his claim through the said OA. The applicant has not mentioned 'technical words' in his resignation application and accordingly his resignation was accepted with conditions contained in C.A-3, that he would not be able for pension and gratuity from the Department of Posts. Now, for reasons unknown, he is trying to get the pensionary benefits MANISH without having any cogent evidence in support. As regards the MEHROTRA respondents Departmental memorandum dated 26.12.2013, it speaks for both kinds of resignations-i.e. 5
(i) Clear resignation, which entails for forfeiture of past qualifying services and
(ii) Exceptionally technical resignation, which does not result in for forfeiture of past service.
Since the applicant had tendered clear resignations, which was accepted with further clear conditions of non entitlement for pensionary benefits, now there is left nothing for more clarification hence, the applicant has no right to claim for pensionary benefits under the above scenario. Now, for omission/ignorance committed by him, the Postal Department cannot be given extra illegal burden in the shape of his monthly pension. It is also submitted by the respondents that while deciding such cases, correspondences were exchanged between all those authorities, who are related to the case but finally the decision as per rule has been taken by the office of respondent no-2 where respondent no-3 also works. Hence, his entitlement for pension and gratuity stands forfeited as per Rule 26(1) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 (CA-1). The applicant had not submitted technical resignation as such he has no right to claim the pension. Moreover he is tendering his claim after a gap of 10 years for reasons well known to the applicant. It is relevant to mention here that as stated by the applicant in the letter dated 22.01.1993 (A-9 of the OA) that the officials entitled for pension who have relinquished the charge form their post in the Department under Technical Resignation but not those whose resignation has been accepted under certain conditions including their non entitlement of pension and gratuity as in the case of the applicant as such the case/claim of the applicant has no leg to stand. The applicant is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Court as such the claim of MANISH the applicant is devoid on merit and the OA is liable to be dismissed with MEHROTRA heavy cost so that no one can think to mislead the Hon'ble Court and can take/kill the precious time of the Hon'ble Court. The respondents 6 submitted that no injustice has been done with the applicant hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
4. The applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit rebutting the facts stated in the counter reply and also reiterating the facts as submitted in the O.A.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
6. The facts which are admitted by the parties that applicant was permitted to apply to the post of Lecturer vide order dated 11.06.2003. 'No objection' was issued on 21.08.2006 in favour of applicant regarding relieving under the General rules and conditions for joining to the post of Lecturer. Resignation was accepted vide order dated 28.05.2007 imposing three conditions. Condition No. 2 is relevant for consideration of claim of applicant for pension and gratuity.
7. The respondents' department denied the claim of applicant raised for grant of pension. The ground of rejection is that services of applicant were forfeited under Rule 26 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on the ground of undertaking given by the applicant. However, applicant is relying over Rule 26 (2) and Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
8. Counsel for the parties argued on the applicability of Rule 26 (1) and (2) of C.C.S. Pension Rules, which are quoted herein below: -
"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 MANISH forfeiture of past services.
MEHROTRA (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."
7Even though considering the Rule 26 (2) in favour of applicant, applicant cannot claim benefit of Rule 49 as same is applicable to retired Government employee and not resigned Government employee. Rule 49 (2) reads as under: -
"49. Amount of Pension
- ---
(2) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than ten years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, subject to a minimum of three thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem and maximum of forty-five thousand rupees per mensem.
9. Accordingly, Rule 49 is applicable in case of person retiring and the qualifying service is to be counted for not less than 10 years. However, in the instant case the applicant has resigned and not retired, therefore, said provision of Rule 49 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules is not applicable in the case of applicant. Resignation cannot be termed as retirement to get the benefits of aforesaid Rule.
10. The applicant has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat & anr. Civil Appeal No. 1571/2024 which was decided on 02.02.2024. From the perusal of said Judgment, it appears that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the past services rendered by the applicant with the postal department i.e. Central Government has to be considered as qualifying services for the purpose of pension after absorption in the State Government, and considered the resignation as a technical resignation. The relevant paragraphs of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court are as follows: -
MANISH "12. The fulcrum of the dispute before this Court pertains to whether MEHROTRA the Appellants' subsequent employment with the State Government could be construed to mean that the Appellant had been 'absorbed' by the State Government, such that the Appellants' prior service with the Central Government would be considered as a part of 'qualifying service' in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules.8
13. Admittedly, the Appellant served the Central Government as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division between '1983 - '1993 i.e., for a period spanning close to a decade. Subsequently, pursuant to an invitation of application(s) for recruitment to the post 160 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports of Senior Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Government of Gujarat, the Appellant herein after obtaining an NOC from the Central Government, applied for and subsequently came to be appointed to the aforesaid post. Thereafter, the Appellant volunteered a technical resignation in order to be able to serve the State Government.
------
20. Accordingly, we direct Respondent No. 1 to consider the service rendered by the Appellant to the Central Government in his capacity as Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division to be considered as qualifying service; and thereafter (i) re-calculate the terminal benefits / pensionary benefits accruing in favour of the Appellant; and (ii) transmit the arrears (if any) of such terminal benefits / pensionary benefits to the Appellant within 6 (six) weeks from today i.e., 02.02.2024."
From the above decision, it is apparent that the case of employee before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the past services rendered in the Central Government in the capacity of Postal Assistant to be considered as a qualifying service for the purpose of re-calculation of terminal benefits/pensionary benefits accruing for the services discharged with the State Government.
11. However, in the instant case it is apparent that the applicant has tendered his resignation before the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Deoria dated 28.05.2007 and thereafter he has joined the post of Lecturer in response to the appointment offered by the U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Seva Chayan Board and it appears that he is working on the post of Lecturer. In the instant case, the applicant is seeking pension from the postal department i.e. Central Government organization under Rule 49 MANISH (2) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. It is apparent from the aforesaid Hon'ble MEHROTRA Supreme Court judgment that the benefit of past services, in the case of technical resignation, is to be considered by the present employer for the purpose of pensionary benefits/terminal benefits accruing in favour of the 9 applicant. However, he is not making such claim before the present employer, but seeking the benefit of past services from his previous employer. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled for the relief(s) claimed in the O.A.
12. In view of the above discussions, no merit is found in the present O.A. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (Judicial) /M.M/ MANISH MEHROTRA