Government of India and The Director, Dept. of Pension and Pen. Welfare vs M.K. Iqbal and The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard Mr. G. Nanmaran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.

Nazirudeen, learned Counsel for the first respondent.

The question involved in this writ petition relates to the payment of pro rata pension and encashment of Earned Leave for the period during

which the present first respondent was working under the Geological Survey of India.

The first respondent was initially appointed in the Geological Survey of India (''GSI'' in short) with effect from 21.7.1976 as against the

permanent post on temporary basis and subsequently, he was granted quasi-permanent status on 21.7.1979. Thereafter, on the basis of his

application, he was sent to serve under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (''ONGC'' in short) on deputation basis with effect from 16.7.1983.

He was declared permanent in GSI with effect from 1.1.1985. Subsequently, he resigned from GSI on 23.1.1986 in order to join ONGC on

permanent post, which was also accepted. The claim of the first respondent is that he is entitled to the payment of pro rata pension on the footing

that he had completed ten years of service in GSI. Initially such claim was accepted by the department. But subsequently the department passed an

order recalling the earlier order. This was challenged before the Tribunal by the first respondent by filing O.A. No. 1004 of 2002. The Tribunal,

considering the fact that the first respondent is deemed to have completed ten years of service in GSI, observed that the first respondent (applicant

before the Tribunal) was entitled to get pro rata pension. Similarly, the Tribunal also observed that the first respondent was entitled to encashment

of Earned Leave available under the previous employer viz., GSI. Such an order of the Tribunal is in question by the Union of India and the

Director General of Geological Survey of India.

The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the declaration of permanency with effect from

1.1.1985 in GSI was erroneous, as no permanent post was available. Similarly, the lien period of the first respondent should not have exceeded

two years and therefore, he could not have been allowed to continue in ONGC after completion of two years lien period.

We do not think that these aspects can be agitated at this stage. Even assuming that there were some erroneous orders earlier passed, on that

basis, things cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time. In our opinion, the Tribunal has considered the relevant facts and there is no error of law

apparent on the face of the record requiring interference. Since the order passed by the Tribunal is based on peculiar fact situation in the case, it is

obvious that such an order of the Tribunal cannot be construed as a precedent for other cases. The order of the Tribunal shall be complied with, in

a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No. 856 of 2005 is closed.