Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P Sunil vs M/O Defence on 15 January, 2018
.... .
• 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Orieinal Application No. 180/00814/2016
f(/ond'"j , this the /5~ day of January, 2018
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
P. Sunil, Ex. Draftsman Electrical, (PN.82425 NI),
Last posted at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, S/o. P.K. Padmini,
aged 52 years, residing at Nirmaliam, Jayaprakash Lane,
Kudappanakkunnu PO, Thiruvananthapuram-695043. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Madhusoodanan K.)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Defense, South Block,
Government ofindia, New Delhi- 110 011.
2. The Admiral Superintendent,
Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, Pin - 400 023. Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. S.R.K. Prathap, ACGSC)
This application having been heard on 03.01.2018 the Tribunal on
15-C>I-~0)~ delivered the following:
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member-
The applicant was working as Draftsman Electrical at Naval Dockyard, '• Mumbai. He states that after having put in · 16 years of continuous and unblemished service, he submitted resignation in 1997 and that he was permitted to resign vide Annexure A2 communication dated 23.4.1998. The applicant states that he submitted resignation on account of certain personal and unexpected contingencies that arose in his life. Now he is living with . --· 2 his 72 year old mother, his wife and two female children and finds it difficult to lead a decent livelihood as he has neither pension nor any other benefit by way of social security despite having put in so many years of committed service under the Indian Government. On seeing Annexures A3 and A4 newspaper reports on a Supreme Court decision ordering payment of pension to the. persons who have resigned from service, he sent Annexure A5 representation to respondent No. 2 seeking pension that is eligible to him. However, by Annexure A6 dated 6.8.2016 respondent No. 1 sent a reply stating that he is not entitled to pensionary benefits. Hence, he has approached this Tribunal praying for quashing and setting aside Annexure A6 and to direct the respondents to sanction pension and other benefits considering his service from 1982 to 1993 with interest.
2. Respondents filed reply statement pointing out that having resigned from service applicant is not entitled to any service benefits as the employer employee relationship has ceased by his resignation. According to respondents as per Rule 26 (1) ofCCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 a resignation from service or post unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority results in forfeiture of past service. Respondents therefore pray for rejecting the OA~
3. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant reiterating his· contentions in the OA. ~ • 4.
3
Heard Shri Madhusoodanan K. learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.R.K. Prathap, learned ACGSC for the respondents. Perused the record and the judicial decisions relied on by both sides.
5. The applicant's counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Mahendra Nath Sharma Qudgment dated pt July, 2015 in Civil Appeal No. 1123 of 2015) and a decision of the High Court of Punjab and Harayana dated 15.07.2015 in Harayana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Saroj Bakshi & OrsLPA No. 95 of2011 (O&M).
6. The long and short of the arguments of the applicant is that having put in a pensionable service of nearly 16 years, he should be granted pension for the service so rendered despite his resignation. In this connection applicant is relying on Mahendra Nath Sharma's case (supra) wherein the apex court has extracted the decision of the Constitution Bench in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India - (1983) 1 SCC 305 explaining lucidly the nature and concept of pension. We feel it worth extracting the portions of the D.S. Nakara's judgment (supra) relied on by the apex court in Mahendra Nath Sharma's case (supra). It reads:
"18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service?
19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain ? We .-. 4 need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition.
20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar[(1971) 2 SCC 330] wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose ofquantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh [(1976) SCC IJ."
7. True, pension is a right and is not depending upon the discretion of the Government. However, the aforequoted portion of D.S. Nakara judgment (supra) clearly emphasise that right to pension is governed by the rules and that Government servant coming within those rules is eligible to claim pension.
8. Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 clearly states that resigna~ion entails forfeiture of past service. Rule 26 is extracted 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 forfeiture of past service.
(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.
(3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him.
(4) The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following con~ • 5
(i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation ;
(ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper ;
(iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days ;
(iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.
(5) Request for withdrawal of a resignation shall not be accepted by the appointing authority where a Government servant resigns his service or post with a view to taking up an appointment in or under a private commercial company or in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government.
(6) When an order is passed by the appointing authority allowing a person to withdraw his resignation and to resume duty, the order shall be deemed to include the condonation of interruption in service but the period of interruption shall not count as qualifying service. (7) A resignation submitted for the purpose of Rule 3 shall not entail forfeiture of past service under the Government."
9. The apex court has clearly stated in D.S. Nakara's judgment (supra) that right of pension is governed by rules. When CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as extracted above dis-entitles a person to claim the benefits of the past service on his resignation from the service or post, it goes without saying that such a person will not get any benefit because pension is integrally connected with the past service of the Government employee.
10. It appears to us that the applicant is placing excessive reliance on the past service of nearly 16 years he has rendered prior to his resignation on the premise that it amounts to be a quali(ying s e ? s i o n . True, 16 • 6 years of service qualifies for pension, but such service will be forfeited when he submits resignation, in terms of rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972- which has statutory status under the proviso to Article 309 ofthe Constitution of India, the applicant cannot claim for a new right which has not been provided for in the said rules. Applicant's counsel relied on the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Harayana in Saroj Bakshi's case (supra) and submitted that in the newspaper report yet another apex court judgment was referred wherein it was ordered to grant pension to a resigned employee considering his past service .. The decision of the Punjab & Harayana High Court relied on by the applicant is pertaining to an employee governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules which has a provision for proportionate pension for the resigned employees. However, in the case of a Central Government employee like the applicant, there is no provision in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for granting pension reckoning the past service rendered by him prior to his resignation.
11. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is misconceived and is without any merit. In the result the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(U. SARATHCHANDRAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"
I ,J
t
- -~. 7
,
Ori~:inal Application No. 180/00814/2016
List ofAnnexures of the applicant
AnnexureA1 True copy of the certificate issued by the Admiral
Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai.
AnnexureA2 True copy ofthe order dated 23.4.1998.
AnnexureA3 Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 8th March, 2014.
Annexure A3(a) - English translation of Annexure A3
AnnexureA4 Mathrubhumy daily dated 2ndNov. 2015.
Annexure A4(a) - English Translation of Annexure A4.
Annexure AS Letter to the second respondent seeking pensionary
benefits dated 10.3.2016, by the applicant.
AnnexureA6 True copyofthe reply letter No.
DYP/FP/5220/82425/N/Resigned dated ·
06.08.2016.
Annexure A7 Copy of cash award and commendation certificate
dated 26.01.1993.
List of Annexures of the respondents
Nil
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-