AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.—CM No. 14238/2008 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
WP (C) No. 7348/2008 & CM No. 14237/2008
The Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 28th May, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1285/2007.
The Respondent had joined the services of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in 1965 and continued to work there till 1973. With the prospect of getting better employment, the Respondent sought permission to register with the Employment Exchange and take up service with the Directorate of Education in the Delhi Government. This permission was granted and the Respondent later joined the Delhi Government.
Well before his superannuation, the Respondent took up the issue of counting of 8 years service rendered by him with the MCD for his retiral benefits. The advantage of 8 years of service was denied to him by the Petitioners and feeling aggrieved, the Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for relief by filing an original application u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
In the impugned order passed by it, the Tribunal noted that insofar as the Respondent is concerned, he had complied with all the necessary requirements and that the Petitioners were acting in a hyper-technical manner and insisting upon completion of certain formalities at the cost of the spirit behind the rules and regulations governing his case.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn our attention to Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in support of his case. This reads as follows:
26(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies
There is no dispute about the fact that the Respondent had sought permission from his previous employer (MCD) to register with the Employment Exchange for the purposes of improving his career prospects. To this extent, the Respondent completed the requisite formality.
The Tribunal has made a reference to an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 29th July, 1970. Sub-clause 2 of Clause 2 of that Office Memorandum reads as follows:
On being selected for appointment by the Government Department/Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body for the higher post, he may be treated as on deputation/foreign service for a period of 1 year only. On the expiry of this period he should either revert to the parent Department or resign his post under the Government.
The Tribunal has noted, and in our opinion quite rightly, that when the Respondent joined the services of the Delhi Government, his appointment should have been treated as on deputation for one year and thereafter, the Respondent should have either been reverted back to his parent department or should have been required to resign from his post in the MCD.
It appears that both the MCD as well as the Delhi Government were unmindful of the requirement of the Office Memorandum dated 29th July, 1970 inasmuch as the MCD treated the request made by the Respondent to register with the Employment Exchange as a resignation letter and the Delhi Government, instead of appointing the Respondent on deputation, appointed him on a regular basis.
For the lapse of both these authorities, the Respondent is being made to suffer and his 8 years of service with the MCD is sought to be wiped out for the purposes of retiral benefits. To make matters worse, the Respondent is being blamed for this state of affairs.
It has come on record that the Respondent has been agitating for a considerable period of time for counting the period of 8 years of service for his retiral benefits but because of certain formalities, which were apparently not completed by the Respondent, due to a misunderstanding of correct factual and legal position both by the MCD and the Delhi Government, 8 years of the Petitioner''s life is sought to be wiped out. In this background, we do not find any substance in the contention urged by the Petitioners that due to non-completion of some unspecified technical formalities, the Respondent should be deprived of his correct retiral benefits.
In our opinion, the Tribunal has taken a just and equitable view in the matter and its order is based on the relevant regulations as well as the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which is applicable to the facts of this case. No fault can be attributed to the Respondent.
There is no merit in the petition.
Dismissed.