AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.Haripal, Member J
The applicant was a Senior Charge Man (Radio) of Western Naval Command of the Indian Navy. Prior to his absorption in April 1977, he had been working as an apprentice for five years from 1973. While so, after claiming to have put in 18 years of service, showing personal reasons, he tendered resignation through Annexure A-2, which was accepted and he was discharged from service with effect from 20.12.1991. Thereafter he sought the benefits of pension which was declined.
Now claiming the benefit of Rule 48 B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1972, he states that he is entitled to reckon the period of apprenticeship as well to his credit as qualifying service and thus moved the respondents for granting him pension, which was rejected by Annexure A-5 order dated 27.9.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for quashing Annexure A-5 letter and for a direction to the respondents to grant him pension reckoning his period of apprenticeship along with his period of regular service and to grant him the benefit of additional 5 years of service as per Rule 48-B of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. He has also relied on Annexure A-7 Order of this Tribunal in O.A 180/694/2017 to buttress the contentions.
The claim has been opposed by the respondents. They filed detailed reply statement. Thereafter, a rejoinder has been filed; then an additional reply statement has been filed by the respondents producing a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in O.P(CAT) 36/2019 dated 21st October 2020 as Annexure R1.
Annexure R1 indicates that Annexure A-7 Order of this Tribunal in O.A 180/694/2017 stands reversed.
The precise question that comes up for consideration is whether the applicant, who had tendered absolute resignation, is entitled to get the the period of apprenticeship reckoned as qualifying service for pension under Rule 48-B of CCS (Pension) Rules.
Annexure R-1 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court gives complete answer to the question. In an identical case of a similarly situated person, the High Court held that, that person is not entitled either to the benefit of Rule 48-B or to count the period of apprenticeship as qualifying service. That means, Annexure A-7 order cannot support the case of the applicant. Resultantly, applicant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the O.A and the O.A is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.
(Dated this the 18th day of September, 2023)