Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII, Member (J) The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for directing the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant with regard to monthly pension as given to similar cases of Sri N.L.Verma and Sri Q.A. Khan, Ex-LDC, RRI, Lucknow.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as GDA (LDC) at Regional Research Centre (hereinafter referred as RRC) (Ayurvedi) Gwalior Road, Jhanasi w.e.f. 11.1980. Applicant applied through proper channel for UDC on deputation basis in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and applicant joined on 9.12.1991 as UDC on deputation basis. Applicant submitted his technical resignation along with option for retirement to Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (in short CCRAS) on 6.6.1995. The applicant absorbed as UDC on1.4.1994 in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. Applicant submitted that in similar matter, in the case of Sri N.L. Verma, Ex-GDA, RRI, Tarikhet who was posted as UDC in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, CCRAS has granted monthly pension continuously. It is further stated that one Qamar Ahmad Khan has also received monthly pension by the Department of CCRAS, New Delhi. Applicant retired from Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 31.10.2016 as Office Superintendent. Applicant submitted a detailed representation on 1.7.2017 before the respondent No.2 for consideration of monthly pension of the applicant as has been given to Sri N.L.Verma and Sri Q.A. Khan.

3. Learned counsel for respondents filed Counter Reply, stating therein that answering respondents have no record about posting of the applicant in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. Applicant has to give documentary proof about his posting at Human Resources Development on 9.12.1991. It is further submitted that applicant has enclosed a letter dated 6.6.1995 which is a communication from In-charge Principal, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and is not the technical resignation of the applicant. It is further submitted that in response to the letter dated 17.5.1996 of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, respondent No. 2, i.e. Director General, CCRAS, New Delhi had sanctioned pro-rata retirement benefits i.e. commuted value of pension including terminal benefits, death-cum-retirement gratuity, full and final payment of GPF and encashment of unutilized earned leave and the same were released by the CCRAS to Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti vide order dated 5.12.1996, 16.12.2000 and 2.12.2004. However, there was no specific request at the end of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti or from applicant that monthly pension may be sanctioned. It is further submitted that Officer Incharge , Indian Institute of Ayurveda for Drug Research, Ranikhet vide letter dated 26.12.1993 had forwarded an application of Sri N.L.Verma requested to Director CCRAS, New Delhi that Sri Verma has requested that since he has completed 12 years in the Council, therefore, he may be sanctioned benefit of pro-rata pension as per rules. Accordingly, Sri N.L.Verma was granted monthly pension.

4. Written argument has also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant stating therein that applicant submitted his application for the post of UDC on deputation basis before Dr. S.K. Narang, Deputy Director (Admn.), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti through Dr. N.N. Pathak, Research officer In-charge. Applicant joined Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 9.12.1991. Applicant submitted his technical resignation to CCRAS on 6.6.1995. Applicant was absorbed in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 1.4.1994. It is further stated that in similarly situated employees, in the case of Sri N.L.Verma and Sri Q.A. Khan, CCRAS has allowed pension to both employees who were earlier employees of CCRAS and later on absorbed in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon on the following case laws:-

9. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

10. From perusal of record, it is admitted fact that applicant was appointed in Regional Research Centre (Ayurveda) Gwalior Road, Jhanasi w.e.f. 1.1.1980 and went on deputation in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti w.e.f. 9.12.1991. He was absorbed in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 1.4.1994. Before absorption in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, he had lien in CCRAS i.e. upto 31.3.1994. Meaning thereby, he was employee of CCRAS from 1.1.1980 till 31.3.1994 i.e. for more than 14 years. In the case of Sri N.L. Verma, Officer In-charge, Indian Institute of Ayurveda for Drug Research, Ranikhet vide letter dated 26.12.1993 forwarded an application of Sri N.L.Verma requested to Director CCRAS, New Delhi that Sri Verma has requested that since he has completed 12 years in the Council, therefore, he may be sanctioned benefit of pro-rata pension as per rules. Accordingly, Sri N.L.Verma was granted monthly pension. When in the similarly situated employee, respondents have granted monthly pension, then the court is also of the view that applicant is also entitled for monthly pension because his lien was maintained in CCRAS from 1.1.1980 to 31.3.1994 before absorption in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti i.e. on 1.4.1994. The contention of the respondents that respondents have no record about posting of applicant in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is not acceptable because in para 10 of the counter affidavit, respondents have accepted that since there was a request from Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Lucknow vide letter dated 17.5.1996 to the effect that payment of pensionary benefits , leave encashment and other benefits, Director, CCRAS, New Delhi sanctioned pro-rata retirement benefits i.e. commuted value of pension, including terminal benefits, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment. Hence, it is admitted fact that he has knowledge about the posting of applicant in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. In the same para of Counter reply, respondents have accepted that since Sri N.L. Verma had completed 12 years service in Council, he was granted pro-rata pension as per rules, whereas applicant of the present O.A. has completed 14 years of service in council, but he has been denied the pro-rata pension.