Supreme Court - Daily Orders
S.R. Sharma (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs Union Of India . on 29 November, 2016
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Abhay Manohar Sapre
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12029 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 18813 of 2010)
S.R. SHARMA (DEAD) THR. LRS. ... Appellants
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Since the matter was fixed for disposal, we have heard the counsel appearing for both the sides.
The dispute pertains to the amount of pension payable to the appellant herein (since deceased).
The appellant had initially joined service under Government of Rajasthan in Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as RSEB) as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the year 24.12.1956, wherein he worked till 19.05.1963. With effect from 20.05.1963, the appellant joined service with the Government of India as Assistant Engineer in the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). However, because of his illness, he did not work from 1977-1984 for which period he remained as deserted. Ultimately, he was allowed to Signature Not Verified resign. The actual service rendered by him was 11 years 5 Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2017.01.07 12:54:08 IST Reason: months which was taken into consideration for fixing his pension. The appellant, however, wanted the period during 1 C. A. No. 12029/ 2016 which he served with Government of Rajasthan from 1956 to 1963 as well as the period from 1977-1984 to be also included for computation of pension. For this purpose, he filed writ petition in the High Court. Though it was allowed by the learned Single Judge, in the intra-court appeal filed by the Union of India, the order of the Single Judge has been set aside dismissing the writ petition. It is the judgment of the Division Bench which is assailed by the appellant.
Insofar as the period of service with Government of Rajasthan from 1956 to 1963 is concerned, the admitted facts are that while serving with the State Electricity Board under the State Government, the appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) through proper channel and he was allowed to apply for the said post. On selection as Assistant Engineer in the GREF, he joined the said post without any break in service, which is clear from the fact that he worked in the RSEB till 19.05.1963 and joined as Assistant Engineer in GREF on 20.05.1963. Another pertinent fact, which has also come on record, is that, before joining GREF, the appellant has also handed over the relieving letter issued by RSEB to Boarder Roads Organisation. It is also an admitted fact that this joining took place without tendering any resignation to RSEB. It is not in dispute that service performed in an earlier Government of India or State Government or Public Sector of the State Government is 2 C. A. No. 12029/ 2016 counted. However, the only reason to deny the benefit of the aforesaid service is non-completion of certain formalities. We, after going through the record, are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be blamed for the same, and, in any case, he should not be deprived of the service, to which he is otherwise entitled to, to be included for the purpose of pension. If any formalities are to be completed that can be done between the two departments. It may be significant to point out that the Division Bench of the High Court has not even dealt with this aspect in the impugned judgment.
Going to the period from 1977 to 1984, admitted facts are that the appellant did not work during this period and he remained absent. Though, as per the appellant, the ground is that he was not well, fact remains that he was declared a deserter. Record further shows that because of his declaration as deserter, the appellant was not given any benefit even for the period for which he worked. It is only because of orders dated 10.10.1988 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1539 of 1986 which was preferred by the appellant that his representation was considered again by the Government and he was allowed to resign and the period during which he actually worked was regularised. Insofar as the period from 1977-1988 is concerned during which he remained deserter/absentee, the respondents found that it could not be regularised even under Leave Rules. This Court had, vide 3 C. A. No. 12029/ 2016 orders dated 10.10.1988 in Writ Petition No. 1539 of 1986, given the direction only to the extent that the case of the appellant be considered for pension as per Rules and in accordance with law. When Rules did not permit regularisation of the period of absence, no mandamus in this behalf can be issued.
This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed directing the respondents to include the period of service from 24.12.1956 to 19.05.1963 also for the purpose of pension. Pension shall be calculated on that basis and arrears shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
......................, J.
[ A.K. SIKRI ] ......................, J.
[ ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ] New Delhi;
November 29, 2016.
4 C. A. No. 12029/ 2016
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.9 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 18813/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/11/2009 in CWP No. 3239/2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) S.R. SHARMA (DEAD) THR. LRS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) (For final disposal) Date : 29/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Mala Kumari Sharma)
Court Master Court Master
[Signed order is placed on the file.]
5