Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Bhasha vs D/O Atomic Energy on 6 February, 2023
1 OA 1440/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA NO.1440/2019
Dated Monday the 6th day of February Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORUM: HON'BLE MS. L ATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1 M.Bhasha,
S/O K.B.Mohaideen Abdul Kadhar,
547 Thippu Sultan Street,
Perambaliamedu, Pudupattinam,
Kalpakkam-603 102
2 P.Kannaian,
S/O Pazhaniappan,
501, Periyar Nagar,
Kavankarai,Pudupattinam
Kalpakkam-603 102 ...Applicants
By Advocate Mr.R.Rengaramanujam
Vs.
1 Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Atomic Energy Commission,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Anushathi Bhavan,
CSM Marg, Coloba,
Mumbai-400 001
2 The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.,
Nabhikya Urja Bhavan,
Anu Shakthi Nagar,
Mumbai-400 094
2 OA 1440/2019
3 The Station Director,
Madras Atomic Power Station,
Kalpakkam-603 102 ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
3 OA 1440/2019
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Applicants humbly pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records connected with the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent INo.NPCIL/MAPS/HR/CAT-BASHA/2018 dated 26.10.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction pension and other retirement benefits as per the old CCS Pension Rules by taking into account their service in the Department of Atomic Energy and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:
The 1st applicant joined the respondent department as a Wash Boy during January 1986 and the 2nd applicant joined the respondent department as Tea Maker in November 1985 in the Statutory Canteen under the control of the 3rd respondent. The applicants contended that they are continuously engaged from the date of their initial appointment. By order dated 02.11.1987 they have been regularly appointed in regular time scale of pay and they have been absorbed in the services by the MAPS Cooperative Canteen, Kalpakkam w.e.f 05.06.1991. Subsequently, in the earlier round of litigation by filing OA 1411/2015, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking a direction to consider their services rendered in the office of the 3rd respondent at least to the extent of 50% as qualifying service towards pension. This Tribunal has directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants according to the relevant rules and also in accordance with the order passed by the Delhi High court in WP 5695/2000 dated 4 OA 1440/2019 30.04.2012 based on which the entire past service rendered by the non-
Statutory Canteen employees was counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in accordance with CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal, the respondents considered the claim and by their order dated 26.10.2018 rejected the claim on the ground that the applicants have rendered their services prior to 02.11.1987 for a period of May 1986 and June 1986 with MAPP Employees Coperative Canteen Kalpakkam on adhoc basis hence they are not qualified and hence it cannot be counted for pensionary purposes as it is not considered as temporary service as per the CCS Pension Rules 1972. Being aggrieved the applicants have challenged the said order in the present OA and prayed for the above said relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered the appearance through their counsel and filed their counter and raised objections over the claim of the applicant on the ground that though the applicants have been appointed by order dated 02.11.1987, the applicants' appointments are non- government and temporary and does not carry any pensionary or gratuity benefits. Also the applicants were not on the pay roll of the respondents as well as they have not rendered 10 years of continuous service till their subsequent absorption, therefore, they are not eligible and entitled to claim the benefit under the Old Pension Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondents has also raised a further plea on the ground that the OA is not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction since the respondent 2 & 3 are not notified under the Administrative Tribunals Act and prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard learned counsel Mr.R.Rengaramanujam for the applicant and Mr.V.Vijay Shankar for the respondents and perused the OA as well as the 5 OA 1440/2019 records related to the case.
5. It is not in dispute that the applicants have been appointed by the 3 rd respondent in the year 1987 as the respondents have annexed the said order along with their counter at page 29. It is also to be noted that the 3 rd respondent has taken a decision on 17.10.1987 to absorb the casual employees against the suitable post after assessing the evidence and directed the applicants including other employees to appear before the selection committee for interview on 19.10.1987. Accordingly, the applicants appeared before the selection committee and they have been found fit. The 2nd respondent approved their appointment by order dated 07.02.1996 along with other 31 employees w.e.f 05.06.1991 wherein both the applicants' names figured at Sl.No.15 & 29 respectively.
6. It is also to be noted that by issuing this order, it has been specifically mentioned besides the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment issued to the applicants and other employees they will be governed by other rules and regulations of the Nuclear Power Corporation. It is to be noted that since the respondent authorities have declined to grant the pension according to the CCS Pension Rules, some of the employees who are similarly situated like the applicants have approached the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal at Jodhpur by filing OA 301/2003 praying the relief for grant of pension. The respondents therein raised the objections that since the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd is government company and it has not been so far notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the OA. Upon hearing, the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal by its order dated 20.02.2006 has justified that the said objections 6 OA 1440/2019 has no merits and directed the respondents to consider the OA of the applicants therein as a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order. According to the direction issued by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal at Jodhpur, the 1st respondent by its order dated 19.05.2006 granted the relief as prayed by the applicants therein who were working in the NPB non Statutory Canteen as on 16.09.1987. However, the applicants herein above are claiming that they have not been extended the said relief.
7. It is to be noted that by order dated 07.06.2006 the 2 nd respondents have considered the issue pertaining to the regularisation and grant of pension in respect of the employees whose services have been regularised w.e.f 01.10.1991 thereby the respondents have taken a decision to extend the benefit of absorption in NPCIL and ask for the option from the said employees either (a) to elect pension scheme under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 or CCS(CP) Rules 1991 and CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules or (b) to be governed by CPF scheme. The concerned employees had to exercise their option immediately, options were extended either for the absorption in NPCIL w.e.f 17.09.1994 or 01.01.1998 as the employees may choose and depending upon the option exercised by them including for settlement of pensionary benefits upon absorption, the settlement may be done as was done in the case of other deputationists opted for absorption either from 17.09.1994 or from 01.01.1998 as the case may be. According to this letter it was necessary on the part of the respondents to make it aware widerly and give an opportunity to the employees to opt for such benefit. So far neither any averment has been made in the counter filed by the respondents nor any documents has been produced in this respect to show that they have made wide publicity of the said communication.
8. Therefore, in my considered opinion , the impugned orders dated 7 OA 1440/2019 26.10.2018 are bad in law and accordingly the same are quashed and set aside. Though the applicants have already retired from service on superannuation w.e.f 30.11.2013 and 30.06.2011 respectively and received the benefit under the CPF scheme, their cases have to be considered for grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme. The applicants are directed to deposit the amount received by them as terminal benefits after their retirement on superannuation from CPCIL in the office of the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondents are directed to receive the amount to be deposited by the applicant and complete the formalities as per the rules/circulars/orders by taking option form and process the file of the applicants for pension and extend the said benefit of pension under the CCS Pension Rules 1972. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the amount and option form from the applicants. OA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 06.02.2023 MT