Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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:

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.