AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The original application filed by the respondent to sanction him pro- rata pension was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said order is challenged in this writ petition by the department of telecommunications.
The facts:
The respondent joined the service of Madras Telephones on 8 March 1977. While working as Assistant Engineer, he was appointed in the post of Deputy Regional Director in Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ESI Corporation). The respondent obtained technical resignation from Madras Telephones. He was relieved on 20 March 1992 so as to enable him to join ESI Corporation, New Delhi. The respondent joined the service of ESI Corporation on 26 March 1992.
The respondent made a claim that he is entitled to pro-rata pension from the parent department for the purpose of fixing pension in the migrated department on his permanent absorption in the latter organisation. However, his case was not favourably considered by the first petitioner herein on the ground that records were not available in DoT and in the absence of the same, it is not possible to process the case of the respondent, as it is not known as to whether the case of the officer for absorption in ESI Corporation was considered earlier. This made the respondent to file original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The application was opposed by the department of telecommunications on the ground that Rule 37 of CCS (Pension) Rules are not applicable to the case of the respondent.
The Central Administrative Tribunal found that resignation from the former employment was recognised by the competent authority with effect from 20 March 1992 and he was relieved. This made the Central Administrative Tribunal to direct the petitioners to process the claim of the applicant for pro-rata pension and to make payment with interest at 8% per annum.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Discussion:
It is not in dispute that the resignation of the respondent was accepted by Chennai Telephones vide proceedings dated 23 March 1992. The resignation was accepted with effect from the afternoon of 20 March 1992. The application submitted by the respondent for pension was returned by the first petitioner solely on the ground that back records were not available. The first petitioner has not considered the claim made by the respondent on merits at any point of time before filing the original application.
The first respondent made a claim on the basis of Sub rule (2) of Rule 37 of the CCS Rules. The Government of India clarified this Rule vide Office Memorandum dated 27 September 1980. The clarification reads thus:
"2. This question has been considered in detail but it has not been found possible to accept the demand of the Staff Side that the pro rata retirement benefits should be granted to Central Government employees who are absorbed in Autonomous Bodies not controlled or financed wholly or substantially by the Central Government. In this connection attention is invited to the provisions of Rule 37 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Since the criterion is satisfied in the case of ESIC in view of the statutory provisions of the ESI Act which confers on the Central Government the power to constitute or supersede the Corporation, to appoint Principal Officer, to accord approval to Recruitment Rules and to approve the budget, etc., the benefits in terms of the provision of Rule 37 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, are clearly available to the Central Government employees absorbed by ESIC. Accordingly, it is hereby clarified that the Central Government employees who have been and may be permanently absorbed therein, shall be eligible for retirement benefits as admissible under the orders in force from time to time according to the dates of their permanent absorption."
The case of the respondent would come within the meaning of sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of CCS (Pension) Rules and in the light of the clarification made by the Government of India. We are therefore of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal was perfectly correct in directing the petitioners to process the case of the respondent for pro-rata pension.
The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioners to pay interest at 8% per annum for the delayed period. It was not the case of the respondent that the petitioners deliberately kept the matter pending and as such he is entitled to get interest. The Tribunal was therefore not correct in directing the petitioners to pay interest.
Resolution:
We confirm the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioners to process the claim of the respondent for pro-rata pension. However, we set aside the direction to pay interest.
The petitioners are directed to consider the case of the respondent for pro-rata pension and pass appropriate orders on merits and in the light of the above observation as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.