Krishan Singh vs Union Of India And Others

Sanjay Dhar, J

1) The petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondents to count the service rendered by him in Army from 06.10.1976 to 31.08.1994 for the purpose of fixing his pension and to release the same in his favour. A further direction has been sought that arrears of the pension be released in favour of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2010 when he attained the age of superannuation.

2) Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sepoy in Dogra Regiment on 06.10.1995, whereafter he was promoted to the post of Havaldar and posted in AEC Training Centre, Pachmarhi (MP). The petitioner retired from Army on 31.08.1994. Vide order No. 73 dated 16.03.2001, the petitioner was re-appointed as Hindi Translator in Group-B with respondent No. 2, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Department (hereinafter to be referred as the NABARD). The appointment was to take effect from 14.02.2001. It has been submitted that the petitioner superannuated from the service of NABARD on 31.03.2010 after rendering more than nine years service. According to the petitioner, he is eligible and entitled to grant of pension under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and his military service is eligible to be counted along with his service rendered with NABARD for the purpose of fixing his pension. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Rule 19 (2) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

3) It has been submitted that the petitioner approached the respondents for fixation of his pension but the same is not being done by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to grant of pension as he has served only for nine years and one and a half months with NABARD. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has put in more than 33 years of service which includes the service rendered by him in Army and NABARD. On this basis, it is being claimed that the petitioner is eligible for grant of pension in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.

4) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner after serving in the Army from 06.10.1975 to 31.08.1994 was re-employed with the NABARD in terms of letter No. 73 dated 16.03.2001 with effect from 14.02.2001. According to the respondents, eligibility of the petitioner to grant of pension is governed by the provisions of NABARD Pension Regulations, 1993 and because the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service of ten years with the NABARD, as such, he is not entitled to grant of any pension.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6) The admitted facts, which have emerged from the pleadings of the parties, are that the petitioner has served in the Army with effect from 06.10.1976 to 31.08.1994. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was employed as a Translator with the NABARD in terms of letter No. 73 dated 16.03.2001 with effect from 14.02.2001. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has superannuated from NABARD on 31.03.2010. Thus, the petitioner has rendered about 24 years of service in Army and nine years and one and a half month’s service with the NABARD.

7) If we have a look at letter dated 01.12.2000 issued by the respondent-NABARD to the petitioner, whereby offer of appointment has been made to the petitioner, as per Clause-VIII of the said letter, the services of the petitioner were to be governed by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff) Rules, 1982. Upon acceptance of the said letter of offer, the petitioner was appointed as a Translator with NABARD in terms of letter No. 73 dated 16.03.2001, meaning thereby that he had accepted the terms of offer of appointment. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that grant of pension to him would be governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is not tenable in light of the fact that he has agreed to be governed by the NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982 in the matter of his service conditions.

8) The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development has been constituted in terms of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act 1981. Section 60(1) of the said Act vests power with the Board of the NABARD to make Regulations providing for matters inter alia relating to duties, conduct, salaries, allowances and conditions of service of officers and other employees of NABARD. In exercise of this power, respondent-NABARD has framed NABARD Pension Regulation, 1993. Regulation No. 4 provides for eligibility of pension. As per this Regulation, pension would be payable on retirement to a full-time or a part-time employee, provided they have completed a minimum service of ten years. Regulation No. 11, provides that qualifying service of an employee shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating capacity. Regulation No. 12 provides that if the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service of less than one year and if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is less than six months it shall be ignored. Regulation No. 14 relates to counting of Military service and it reads as under:

“14. Counting of military service An employee who has rendered military service before appointment in the National Bank may opt either:

(a) to continue to draw the military pension, in which case his former military service shall not count as qualifying service; or

(b) to cease to draw his pension and refund the pension already drawn on reemployment and the value received for the commutation of a part of military pension and count military service as a qualifying service, provided that:

(i) the pension drawn prior to the date of appointment in the National Bank/Reserve Bank of India/ARDC shall not be required to be refunded; and

(ii) (ii) the element of pension which was ignored for fixation of his pay shall be refunded by him.”

9) From a perusal of Regulation No. 14, it is clear that this Regulation pertains to grant of pension to the employees of NABARD, who have been reappointed in the NABARD after their retirement from military service. It provides for method of counting of military service. For the said purpose, an employee, who has rendered military service prior to his appointment in the NABARD, has to make an option, either to continue to draw the military pension or to stop drawing such pension and refund the pension already drawn on reemployment. In the instant case, the petitioner has not even averred that he had made any such option in terms of Regulation 14 nor has it been mentioned in the writ petition that he is not drawing military pension or that he had stopped drawing the military pension upon his reemployment in the NABARD. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim counting of his military service.

10) The other question that falls for determination is whether the petitioner upon his re-employment with NABARD has rendered ten years service so as to be eligible for payment of pension in terms of Regulation No. 4. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he has rendered nine years and one and half months’ service with the respondent-NABARD. Regulation No. 12, as already stated, provides for taking into account the broken period of service of less than one year and it further provides that if such broken period is more than six months, it has to be treated as one year and if such broken period is less than six months, it has to be ignored. The petitioner has not rendered more than nine and a half years of service, therefore, the same cannot be treated as ten years of service. The petitioner has only nine years and one and half months of service with NABARD, as such, it has to be treated that the petitioner has rendered only nine years of service with the NABARD. Thus, he is not eligible for grant of pension as he does not fulfil the criteria prescribed under Regulation No. 4 of the NABARD Pension Regulations of 1993.

11) The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of one year, so as to make him eligible to grant of pension, is without any merit for the reason that there is no provision for relaxation in the Pension Regulation of 1993, which are applicable to the case of the petitioner. The ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Suraj Parkash vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (1) JKJ 719 and Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr vs. Surender Singh Parmar, 2015 (3) SCC 404 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In Suraj Parkash’s case (supra) the Court has held the petitioner therein entitled to grant of relaxation as there was a specific provision in the shape of Regulation 134 of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, which provided for condonation of deficiency in qualifying service upto three months. In Surender Singh Parmar’s case (supra), the Supreme Court took aid of the provisions contained in the Navy Pension Regulations, 1964, which provided for condonation of shortfall in service for granting relaxation in computing the qualifying service. The NABARD Pension Regulations, 1993, as already stated, do not provide for any relaxation in the eligibility conditions relating to the qualifying service. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases is not applicable to the present case.

12) For the foregoing reasons, the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension in his favour is not tenable. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.