Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The Respondents have filed the reply stating that the Review Applicant is trying to mislead the Tribunal by circumlocution, misrepresentation of facts and bringing forth non-relevant court judgments and discovery of new documents. The Respondents have also stated that this Tribunal in para 6 of its judgment clearly mentioned that they are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the order dated 25.07.2006 of NTRO impliedly meant a change of this condition of appointment. They have further stated that the basic ground on which the Applicant has filed the present RA is that the offer of appointment issued by the Respondents to him on 14.02.2006 was not received by him but he was called by the NTRO on 16.02.2006 and gave the offer of appointment of the same date by hand and he joined on the same date. The Respondents have further mentioned that the said offer of appointment dated 16.02.2006 also contains a condition that Applicant would join New Pension Scheme, if applicable. On this premises, he has mentioned in his rejoinder that since he joined Respondent No.2, i.e., ARC on 01.08.1998, he was a member of the Old Pension Scheme and after submitting his resignation from ARC, he joined NTRO. Therefore, after condonation of break in service, he was eligible to be considered under the Old Pension Scheme as the New Pension Scheme came into force on 01.01.2004.

8. The Respondents have also reiterated in their reply that as per the office copy of the offer of appointment dated 14.02.2006 available in the records, there is no hand written clause if applicable added to para 2 (ix). On the contrary, no copy of the offer of appointment dated 16.02.2006 submitted by the Applicant before this Tribunal is available with this office. Further, they have submitted that the offer of appointment in NTRO was a fresh appointment in the year 2006 and he for all purposes has to be covered under the New Pension Scheme only. Further, according to the Respondents, this Tribunal had already taken note of Respondents submission that the said order dated 25.07.2006 was not correct or legally tenable. The condonation of break in service was not within the powers of the NTRO and hence it was not legally tenable and an error committed can always be rectified by the Government. Moreover, no hardship is caused to the Applicant by not granting civil pension from NTRO, which is otherwise also not applicable as he is in receipt of the pension for the services rendered by him in the Indian Air Force.

9. The Respondents have also referred to Rule 26(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which deals with technical resignation. The said Rule also clearly mentions that the order accepting resignation should clearly indicate that the employee is resigning to join other appointment with prior permission and that the benefits under Rule 26 (2) would be admissible to him. The said Rule also stipulates that such an order should be recorded in the service book of the individual concerned under proper attestation. However, in the present case the said stipulation has never been recorded. On the contrary, Applicant submitted a clear resignation requesting it to be accepted from 31.08.2005 vide his application dated 30.05.2005, without mentioning anything about his appointment in NTRO. The same was accepted by ARC and he was relived of his duty w.e.f. 31.01.2006. Neither in the acceptance letter of ARC nor in his service book or other documents anywhere it has been mentioned that Applicant is being relieved of his duties to take up appointment in NTRO with prior permission and his services should be considered in terms of Rule 26 (2) of Pension Rules. Moreover, the Applicant in his letter dated 16.03.2006, addressed to the Chairman, NTRO himself admitted that, Had I been permitted by ARC to join NTRO, I would have earned my pension and all allowances as admissible to superannuated officers. It is, therefore, clear that his reemployment on contract basis in NTRO was not through proper channel and his resignation was not technical and did not attract Rule 26(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The condonation granted in break in service was not legally tenable and hence not acted upon, a fact which has been upheld by the Tribunal while dismissing the OA vide order dated 28.02.2012. They have, therefore, submitted that this RA is not tenable and the same has to be dismissed.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the Review Applicant Shri Padma Kumar S and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri T.C. Gupta. We have also perused the departmental record produced by the Respondents. It is seen from the Respondent-NATOs file that they were in correspondence with the Respondent-ARC with regard to the re-employment of the Applicant. They have received a letter from the ARC dated 18.01.2006 which says that the Applicant will be relived by 31.01.2006. Further it is seen that the application of the Applicant for the post of Scientist E in Respondent-NTRO was duly forwarded by the Respondent-ARC vide their dated 30.12.2004. The Respondent-NTRO also had obtained the No Objection Certificate from the Respondent-ARC before he was offered the appointment to the aforesaid post. Therefore, it cannot be held that the appointment of the Applicant in Respondent-NTRO has no connection whatsoever with his earlier service in the Respondent-ARC.