Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Jagdish Singh Chauhan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)SLJ288(CAT)
ORDER D.C. Verma, Member (J)
1. By this O.A. the applicant has prayed for declaring the cut off date as arbitrary in the O.M. No. 28 (10)/84 P & PW Volume II dated 7.2.1986, and to direct the respondents to count the previous service of the applicant from 1.6.1946 to 9.5.1960 rendered by the applicant in Zila Panchayat, Kanpur Dehat towards qualifying service for pension and related pensionary benefits and payment of arrears from 31.10.84 till date.
2. For clarity of the points involved in the O.A. the brief facts of the case are necessary to be given.
The applicant was initially appointed as Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector in the then District Board (now known as Zila Panchayat), Kanpur Dehat. While working as such, the applicant applied through proper channel for appointment to the post of Assistant Research Officer (Publicity Officer-cum-Health Educator) which later came to be known as Health Education Officer in the Indian Council of Medical Research (in short I.C.M.R.) in its Tricoma. Control Pilot Project (in short T.C.P.P.) Aligarh. The applicant was selected and was relieved from Zila Panchayat Kanpur Dehat on 9.5.60 (A.N.) and he joined the T.C.P.P. under I.C.M.R. on 10.5.60 (F.N.). The applicant was paid a sum of Rs. 3045.01 including the employer's contribution of Rs. 1522.51 on account of Provident Fund and the interest. The T.C.P.P. of the I.C.M.R. was taken over by the Government of India w.e.f. 31.10.63. Subsequently, the applicant was selected through U.P.S.C. and appointed as Assistant Professor in Health Education in the All India Institute of Hygiene Public Health, Calcutta. The applicant was relieved from the T.C.P.P. on 30.11.64 and took over the charge as Assistant Professor on 1.12.64. The applicant retired from All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health Calcutta on superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.84 (A.N.).
3. The applicant claims to have made several representations for counting of his forma service from 1.6.1946 to 9.5.60 rendered with Zila panchayat Kanpur Dehat for pension purpose but nothing was done. An O.M. dated 29.8.84 was issued to give benefit of service rendered with the Central Government if an employee is allowed to be absorbed in Central Autonomous body and vice versa. Subsequently, another O.M. dated 7.2.86 was issued to give benefit of counting of past service rendered with the State Government and State Autonomous bodies to the employees moving to the Central Government in respect of various States including Uttar Pradesh. Para 6 of this O.M. dated 7.2.86, however, provided benefit to those who were in service on the date of issue of the order (issue of order is dated 7.2.1986). Thus, in view of this O.M. dated 07.2.86, the benefit is not to be given to the employees who retired prior to 7.2.1986. The applicant who retired on 31.10.84, is therefore, not covered by the O.M., hence the applicant has filed the present O.A. to challenge the cut off date given in para 6 of the O.M. dated 7.2.1986 which provided that it is for those who are in service on the date of issue of the orders.
4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the period of service rendered by a Central Government employee subsequently absorbed in Central Autonomous body and vice versa, were allowed to be counted towards pension vide office Memo dated 29.8.1984. Para 7 of the said Office memorandum provided that the said order would take effect from the date of issue in respect of those employees who retired from Central Government/Autonomous body service on or after the issue of the said order. The effect of the O.M. dated 29.8.84 was that those employees of the Central Government or Autonomous bodies, who had earlier served the central autonomous body or Central Government and retired after 29.8.84, were not accorded the benefit of counting of their past service. It is submitted that the cut off date given in the O.M. dated 29.8.84 was challenged in a case by one R.L. Marwaha who had retired on 30.9.1980 from I.C.A.R. i.e., Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Prior to the joining of I.C.A.R., service, R.L. Marwaha was an employee of the Central Government. As R.L. Marwaha had retired from I.C.A.R. service on September 30, 1980 i.e., prior to O.M. dated 29.8.1984, the benefit of counting of earlier service was not made available to R.L. Marwaha. The claim made by R.L. Marwaha to challenge the cut off dale was allowed by the Apex Court in R.L. Marwaha v. Union of India reported in 1987(4) SLR 728. The Apex Court upheld the contention and allowed the benefit of the O.M. dated 29.8.84 even to those who retired prior to issue of the said O.M.
5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the benefit as was given to the employees of central Autonomous bodies on their absorption to Central Government and vice versa for counting of their past service vide O.M. dated 29.8.84 was made available to the employees of the Central Government and Central autonomous bodies seeking absorption in autonomous bodies under the State Government and vice versa by issue of order dated 7th February, 1986. The order dated 7th February, 1986 was made applicable in respect of the employees of the State Government and the State Autonomous bodies moving to Central Government/Central autonomous bodies in respect of State Governments including Uttar Pradesh. However, in view of para 6 which provides a cut off date, the benefit of counting of past service was not made available to the present applicant who retired from service on 31.10.1984. Para 6 of the order dated 7th February, 1986 is being quoted below:
"6. These orders will apply to the employees of the Central Government moving to State autonomous Bodies and employees of Central Autonomous Bodies to the State Govts and their Autonomous Bodies mentioned in para 5 above and vice versa who are in service on the date of issue of these orders, irrespective of the dale of their absorption."
It has been submitted that in view of the words "who are in service on the dale of issue of these orders", the benefit of the order dated 7.2.86 is admissible only to the employees of the Central Government moving to Slate Autonomous bodies or to the employees of the Central Autonomous bodies moving to the State and their autonomous bodies but were in service on the dale of issue of the order i.e., 7th February, 1986. As the applicant had retired on 31.10.1984, the benefit is not available to the applicant, hence by this O. A. the applicant has challenged the aforesaid cut off dale, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Mawaha (supra).
6. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the applicant's claim was earlier rejected vide order dated 4.2.1980 (Annexure P-II) annexed with respondents reply filed against M.P. 134/2000 of the applicant. II is submitted that the present O.A. to claim the benefit of counting of past service is therefore, barred by limitation. Furlher, the preliminary objection is that the applicant retired in 1984 and has filed the present O.A. in the year 1998, hence on this ground also the claim is barred by limitation. Further ground is that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed in the O.A. because any rule/order in respect of the employees which is common to State and Central Government employees can be framed/issued on the basis of reciprocal arrangements agreed to by two governments and as the applicant has earlier served on the post of Sanitary Food Inspector, in the District Board, Kanpur and submitted resignation to join the new post, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of O.M. dated 7th February, 1986.
7. The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The object for issue of the impugned order dated 7th February, 1986 is given in paras 1 and 2 of the impugned order which is quoted below:
Dated the 7th Feb., 1986 "To, The Chief Secretarires of all the State Governments.
Subject : Counting of service for purpose of pension of employees of Central Govt. and Central Autonomous Bodies seeking absorption in Autonomous Bodies under the State Govts. and vice versa.
Sir, I am directed to say that in August, 1984, Central Govt. had issued orders that where a Central Govt. employee borne on pensionable establishment is allowed to be absorbed in a Central Autonomous Body having a pension Scheme of its own, the service rendered by him under the Govt. shall be allowed to be counted towards pension under the Autonomous Body irrespective of whether the employee was temporary or permanent in Govt. subject to certain conditions. The same procedure will apply in the case of employees of the Autonomous Bodies who are permanently absorbed under the Central Govt. Certain employees of the Stale Governments and State Autonomous Bodies, who joined the Central Autonomous Bodies/Statutory Bodies, have also represented that their service under the Stale Govt./State Autonomous Body may be allowed to be counted towards pension under Central Autonomous Body where they are presently working. Similarly, certain Central Govt. servants and employees of the Central Autonomous Bodies/Statutory Bodies might have joined Autonomous Bodies/Statutory Bodies (Excluding public undertakings) of the State Govts. and may be desirous of getting the benefit of counting of service under Central Govt./Autonomous Bodies towards pension in the organisations where they are presently working.
2. In the circumstances explained above, it was felt that reciprocal arrangements may be entered into with the various State Govts. to the effect that where employees of the State Govts./State Autonomous Bodies/State Statutory Bodies, have been absorbed in the Central Autonomous Bodies, they may be allowed the same benefits as have been extended to the Central Government servants and vice versa."
(Emphasis laid by us)
8. A reading of the above shows that the earlier order (O.M. dated 29th August, 1984) were issued in respect of the employees borne on 'pensionable establishment' absorbed in Central Autonomous body 'having Pension Scheme of its own'. Similar benefit was extended for counting of service for purpose of pension of employees of the Central Government and Central Autonomous bodies seeking absorption in autonomous bodies under the State Government and vice versa. Thus, the benefit of the order dated 7th February, 1986 would be applicable to the employees borne on 'pensionable establishment' of the Central Government and employees of the Central Autonomous bodies 'having pension scheme of its own' on their absorption to State Government having pensionable establishment, or State autonomous body having pension scheme of their own or vice versa. Meaning thereby, if the State Autonomous body do not have a pension scheme the service rendered with such body would not be counted towards pension. In the present case, the applicant served Zila Parishad Kanpur Dehat i.e., the District Board between the period 1.6.1946 till 9.5.1960 (A.N.) to join Unit of I.C.M.R. in the F.N. of 10.5.1960, the services rendered by the applicant as Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector in the District Board Kanpur between the period 1.6.46 to 9.5.60 has not been counted towards pension. The question, thus, arises is whether the applicant was serving a 'pensionable post' in the District Board Kanpur Dehat. From the representation Annexure A-2 dated 6th May, 1976 and even from subsequent representation, it is clear that the post held by the applicant as Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector in the District Board Kanpur Dehat was not a pensionable post. In the representation (Annexure-2) dated 6.5.76 the applicant has mentioned that the semi Government institution paid him their contribution to the Provident Fund which the applicant is ready to pay back together with interest thereon. In the representation Annexure A-3 dated 30.5.77 the applicant has given his own calculation for return of the amount on account of contribution and interest thereon. Thus, from the applicant's own record, it is clear that the post of Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector held by the applicant in the District Board, Kanpur Dehat was not a pensionable post. It is clear that on joining the unit of I.C.M.R. the applicant was paid the fund amount alongwith contribution of their employer which the applicant is now willing to pay back.
9. It may also be observed, as has been held above, the service of the applicant rendered with the District Board was not pensionable service, so in case such a period is allowed to be counted towards pensionary benefits, it would amount to make a non pensionable service, a pensionable one. Such a relief cannot be granted by this Tribunal, as it is beyond its jurisdiction.
10. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant in the case of R.L. Marwaha is not applicable in the present case. In the cited case, R.L. Marwaha was holding a pensionable post before joining the other pensionable post in the I.C.A.R. The question for consideration before the Apex Court was in respect of employees of the autonomous bodies where pension scheme was in operation. The relevant portion of the O.M. dated 29.8.84 has been quoted above at page 732 of the S.L.R., details given earlier. The case before us is not in respect of an employee who was holding a pensionable post during the period, the counting of which is being sought. Thus, the applicant would not be entitled for counting of the service for the period the applicant served as Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector in the District Board, Kanpur Dehat for the period 1.6.46 to 9.5.60. As the applicant has not been found entitle to claim such relief, the relief for quashing of the cut off date is not required to be considered in the light of the facts of the given case.
11. In view of the above discussions, the O.A. is found devoid of merit and is dismissed. Costs easy.