Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
S Jagannathan vs Isro on 12 September, 2022
1
OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/01142/2019
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Sri S. Jagannathan,
Son of S.R. Shankaranarayanan,
Aged about 59 years,
Residing at No.338, Pranavandu,
18th Main, AG's Layout, Arehalli,
Bengaluru-560 061. ....Applicant
(By Advocate Ms. Revathy Adinath Narde )
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Under Secretary to
Government of India,
Department of Space,
Antariksh Bhavan, New BEL Road,
Bangalore-560 231.
2.The Chairman,
ISRO, Department of Space,
Antariksh Bhavan, New BEL Road,
Bangalore-560 231.
....Respondents
(By Advocate Shri K. Gajendra Vasu)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief: 2
OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
a) To direct the respondents to permit the applicant to re-join the second respondent (ISRO, Department of Space) and continue his services.
b) Direct the respondents to release all the monetary benefits from the date of resignation i.e., 01.05.2000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, OR In alternate direct the Respondents to provide pension calculating the years of service rendered by the applicant along with pensionary benefits.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant joined service as Scientific Assistant 'B' in the office of second respondent (ISRO, Department of Space) on 15.09.1985. He completed his probation on 04.09.1986. He submitted his resignation on 13.04.2000 as Scientist/ Engineer, 'SD', on personal grounds. His resignation was accepted by the respondents and the authority relieved him from duties on 01.05.2000.
b) He resigned due to some disturbance in the family and lost interest in the job. Subsequently, the circumstances of the family drastically changed thereafter and became congenial for him to re-join service in the office of Respondent No.2. He approached the authorities on 01.06.2000 and requested orally to take him for work which they refused. He also wrote a letter to the 2nd Respondent on 01.06.2000 3 OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench requesting to withdraw the resignation. However, there was no reply from the respondents to this letter. The applicant had two children and a family to maintain. Hence, he chose to join a private company for his livelihood along with follow up with the respondents for re-joining.
c) The applicant subsequently submitted an application on 21.1.2014 to the Prime Minister's office requesting to allow him to re-join the service in the office of Respondent No.2. The Prime Minister's office forwarded the application to Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 subsequently rejected his application vide letter dated 25.6.2014 on the grounds that the applicant has taken private employment after his resignation from service in April 2000 and as stipulated in Rule 26 (5) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, Appointing Authority cannot accept the withdrawal of resignation when a Government servant resigns his post to take up private/commercial employment.
d) The applicant again wrote to Prime Minister's office on 14.09.2014. He received a reply from Respondent No.1 on 09.2.2015, which again conveyed that his request for withdrawing the resignation cannot be accepted.
e) The applicant submitted that through various sources he came to know that in similar circumstances the 2nd Respondent had accommodated his colleagues who had resigned from service. They were taken back by Respondent No.2 for service in ISRO. The following staff members were allowed to re-join the service in ISRO who were placed similar to that of the applicant:
4
OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench Sl. Name Staff Designation Division Date of Date of No (Shri/Smt code Resignation Reappointment 1 Sanjeev Kumar 27336 Scientist/ CSSD/ 20.6.2003 26.7.2004 Engineer SF CMSE
2. Anjul Beohar 10238 Scientist/ SSMD/ 13.8.2010 23.4.2012 Engineer SE ASMG 3 Asha A.S 10316 Senior PGA 26.5.2009 03.8.2009 Assistant 4 Moni Sankar R `3530 Assistant PGA 27.7.2012 18.9.2012 5 Sudipta Nandy 36455 Scientist/ EFA/ 09.7.2010 14.9.2010 Engineer MME SD
f) The applicant further submitted that in view of the fact that his erstwhile colleagues had been so accommodated, he should also be provided an opportunity to withdraw his resignation and continue in service.
Discrimination between the applicant and his colleagues is violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The applicant joined U R Rao Satellite Centre (URSC) on 05.09.1985 as Scientific Assistant-B. He received promotions in his career at URSC and was promoted as Scientist/ Engineer-'SD' on 01.01.1999.
b) The applicant submitted his resignation to the competent authority in April 2000 on personal grounds. His resignation was accepted and the 5 OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench applicant got relieved of his duties from ISRO on 01.05.2000. The applicant completed 14 years 07 months and 26 days of service.
c) In terms of Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Resignation (other than technical resignation) entails forfeiture of past service.
Therefore, no pension is payable on such resignation. Further, minimum service of 10 years prescribed for grant of Pension is applicable for employees who retire from service and not in cases of Resignation. Retirement Gratuity is also admissible only to a permanent employee who retires from service and it is not applicable for resignation cases.
d) In view of the above, the applicant was not eligible for pension/retirement gratuity for the service in the Respondents URSC office as per the extant rules on the subject mentioned in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
e) The applicant is claiming in his OA that he had submitted an oral request/application dated 01.06.2000 for withdrawal of resignation. In this regard, applicant has not made clear as to whom the applicant had made the oral request on 1.06.2000. At this juncture, request made orally cannot be taken up for disposition. It is further reiterated that URSC office/ Respondents had not received his request letter dated 01.06.2000. If at all such a letter was received, the same would have been put up before the Appointing authority and decision taken of accepting/ non-accepting would have been conveyed to the resigned employee. Such a document does not exist. The applicant has neither produced any acknowledgement for submitting his letter to URSC office 6 OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench or any documentary proof of mailing his letter dated 01.06.2000 to URSC, except for submitting a self-attested copy of the letter dated 01.06.2000 as Annexure A-2 of his OA.
f) A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and the Government servant is relieved of his duties. As per the provisions of 26(4) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, if a Government servant who had submitted a resignation, sends an intimation for withdrawal of resignation after relief, the appointing authority may permit withdrawal of resignation subject to:
i. Availability of the vacated post.
ii. The resignation was tendered by the Government servant for
some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on integrity, efficiency or conduct.
iii. The request for withdrawal has been made as a result of material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation.
iv. The resignation was not tendered with a view to take up an appointment in a private commercial company or financed by the Government.
g) The applicant has declared that he choose to join a private company for his livelihood. Notwithstanding the circumstances, which compelled him to take up an appointment in private commercial company, the withdrawal of resignation could not have been accepted, if applied for taking up an appointment in a private commercial company by the applicant.
h) The applicant has not made any request for withdrawal of resignation within the prescribed time limit. The applicant, after a period of 14 years 7 OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench had made representations to various authorities for reinstatement vide letters dated 14.9.2014, 27.7.2015, making an attempt to get financial benefits. His request for reappointment in ISRO was not accepted by the respondents.
i) As per Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, acceptance of request for withdrawal of Resignation is not an absolute right of an employee but shall be exercised at the discretion of the Appointing Authority in the Public Interest. The request of the applicant to accept withdrawal of resignation after a period of 14 years is not tenable.
j) It is not correct to state that in similar circumstances, the 2nd respondent had accommodated his colleagues who had resigned from ISRO and served in Public Organizations. Out of the 5 employees referred to by the applicant, 3 employees (two employees joined government services and one employee resigned on health grounds of his mother and did not join any services) had withdrawn their resignation within the permitted period of 90 days. The other two employees, one Shri Anjul Beohar had submitted a request for technical resignation on 03.08.2010 and relieved on 13.8.2010 to join Indian Ordnance Factory Services under Ministry of Defence. He had requested for withdrawal of Resignation vide letter dated 01.11.2010 (within the permitted period of 90 days). The said employee was taken back to duty on 23.4.2012 due to certain delays in completing administrative formalities. Shri Sanjeev Kumar had submitted technical resignation on 16.6.2003 and relieved on 20.6.2003 to take up assignment with Ordnance Factory Staff College, Ministry of 8 OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench Defence. He had requested for reinstatement in ISRO through proper channel i.e., Director, OFSC, Nagpur. The appointing Authority had approved his re-appointment in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), one of the leading centre of ISRO, after submission of his technical resignation at Ministry of Defence.
4. In the rejoinder to the reply, the applicant has pleaded as follows:
a) The applicant has reiterated that 2 of his colleagues, Shri Sanjeev Kumar and Anjul Beohar, had resigned from ISRO and were taken back by Respondent No.2 for service. Both of them had joined private organizations. The applicant submits that Sri Anjul Beohar joined Indian Ordinance Factory services under Ministry of Defence, which is a commercial company financed by GOI under the Ministry of Defence.
b) The applicant further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering pension entitlement of an individual on resignation had emphasised in the case of Asger Ibrahim vs. LIC, (2016) 13 SCC 797, as follows:
"The legal position deducible from the above observations further amplifies that the so-called resignation tendered by the Appellant was after satisfactorily serving the period of 20 years ordinarily qualifying or enabling voluntary retirement. Furthermore, while there was no compulsion to do so, a waiver of the three months' notice period was granted by the Respondent Corporation. The State being a model employer should construe the provisions of a beneficial legislation in a way that extends the benefit to its employees, instead of curtailing it.".
c) Further the question regarding resignation and forfeiture of service was considered in P. Vijayanarayana Reddy Vs. Indian Overseas Bank in 9 OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench WA No.395/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. In this case, the petitioner served the bank as an Officer for a period of 23 years and tendered his resignation. The question which fell for consideration was whether the Petitioner is entitled for pension putting qualifying years of service and the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of the Single Bench and directed the Respondent bank to consider the case of the petitioner for pension within 3 months. Due to non-compliance of this order, Contempt Petition was filed against which the Bank approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal 8338/2020, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the same and directed them to comply within 6 weeks. Accordingly the Bank had passed the order for compliance.
5. The respondents have filed their additional reply to the rejoinder filed by the applicant. They have averred as follows:
a) The respondents have reiterated that in terms of Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Resignation entails forfeiture of past service.
Therefore, no pension is payable on such resignation. Further, minimum service of 10 years prescribed for grant of pension is applicable for employees who retire from service and not for cases of resignation. Retirement Gratuity is admissible to the employees who retires from service and it is not applicable for resignation cases.
b) As per rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, acceptance of request for withdrawal of resignation is not an absolute right of an employee, but 10 OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench shall be exercised at the discretion of the Appointing Authority in the public interest. Hence, the claim to accept withdrawal of resignation after a long period of 14 years is completely devoid of merit. Moreover, the applicant has referred cases where personnel had joined institutions run by the Government and re-joined the Government organisation. The applicant's case cannot be compared with that of quoted cases, since the facts involved in the applicant's case (i.e., taking up private employment) and the cases referred to by him are not identical and hence the question of discrimination does not arise at all.
c) In the case of Asger Ibrahim vs. LIC, (2016) 13 SCC 797 refereed to by the applicant, Shri Asger Ibrahim had joined the services of LIC. His service was governed by LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and not by the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
d) The applicant has not rendered 20 years of qualifying service, but has rendered only 14 years 07 months and 26 days. The latest judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9076/2019 @ SLP (C) No. 6553/2018 in the matter of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. versus Sh. Ghanshaym Chand Sharma & Anr. on this issue is as follows:
Rule 26 of the Central Civil Service Pension Rules 1972 states that:
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 a forfeiture of past service Rule 26 states that upon resignation, an employee forfeits past service. We have noted above that the approach adopted by the court in Asger Ibrahim Amin has been held to be erroneous since it removes the important distinction between resignation and 11 OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench voluntary retirement. Irrespective of whether the first respondent had completed the requisite years of service to apply for voluntary retirement, his was a decision to resign and not a decision to seek voluntary retirement. If this court were to re-classify his resignation as a case of voluntary retirement, this would obfuscate the distinction between the concepts of resignation and CCS Pension Rules voluntary retirement and render the operation of Rule 26 nugatory. Such an approach cannot be adopted.
Accordingly, the finding of the Single Judge that the first respondent voluntarily retired is set aside.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
7. In the present case, the applicant has prayed for permitting the applicant to re-join the services or alternatively direct the respondents to provide pension calculating the service rendered along with pensionary benefits.
8. The applicant had resigned on 13.04.2000 on personal grounds. His resignation was accepted by the respondents and he was also relieved on 01.05.2000. The applicant is claiming that subsequently, he made an oral request, as well as submitted an application in writing on 01.06.2000, requesting for withdrawal of his resignation and permission to re-join the services. However, there is no credible evidence of him making any such written application to the respondents, except for a self-attested copy produced by the applicant as Annexure A-2. There is no evidence of any acknowledgement from the respondents of having received any such request and no proof of submitting of the same through registered post. The respondents in their reply have also categorically denied receiving any such request.
12
OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
9. The applicant submitted an application in the year 2014 to the Prime Minister's Office. This application was forwarded to Respondent No.2, who rejected it vide letter dated 25.6.2014. The reason for rejection was that the applicant had taken up private employment after resigning from the service and as stipulated under Rule 26(5) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Appointing Authority cannot accept withdrawal of resignation, when a Government servant takes up a private employment.
10. The applicant has quoted cases of some of his colleagues who had resigned and were subsequently allowed to re-join. However, a perusal of these cases indicates that the gap between the resignation and re-appointment was ranging from a couple of months to 2 years. The facts and circumstances of these cases are also nowhere similar to the applicant, who has approached the respondents after a gap of 14 years, after serving in private employment in this period.
11. The prayer of the applicant to grant him pension for the period of service rendered by him from 1985 to 2000 cannot be allowed in view of the specific provisions under Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which categorically state that resignation (other than technical resignation) entails forfeiture of past service. This has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & anr, in Civil Appeal No.9076/2019 in SLP (C) No.6553/2018.
12. Keeping the above facts in view, there is no merit in the OA filed by the applicant and it deserved to be dismissed.
13
OA.No.170/1142/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
13. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/