Union of India (UOI) vs The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and Shri D.R. Davey, Retired Director (SG), Geological Survey of India

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—Petitioner is the Central Government. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative

Tribunal made in O.A.1045 of 2001 dated 30th April, 2002 wherein the Tribunal directed the Government to reckon the past services rendered

by the 2nd respondent herein in ONGC as qualifying service for grant of retiral benefits. The respondent concerned served admittedly in ONGC

right from 1961 to 1966. In 1966 he appeared for the competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and was

selected. In pursuance of that, he resigned from ONGC which resignation was duly accepted. Ultimately, the respondent served in the Geological

Survey of India (herein after referred to as GSI) and he retired from service in the position of Director (SG) in the year 1997. Before he retired in

the year 1997, in 1995 itself he had made a fervent appeal to the department to treat his earlier service for the purpose of his retiral benefits. For

the reasons known that was not done. Ultimately he was driven to file an Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the

application and has directed the Department to take into consideration the service already effected. The basis of the application was two fold.

Firstly it was said that one Mr. D.B. Dimri an erstwhile employee who had also served in ONGC was given the benefit of his earlier service while

calculating his pension through Geological Survey of India. The second basis was that in fact the transition of the respondent from ONGC to

Geological Survey of India had no illegality attached to it and was not tainted with any irregularity. The Tribunal accepted both these stands and

ultimately chose to allow the application. This order of the Tribunal is under challenge before us.

Mr. N.T. Arunan learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel very fervently pointed out before us a document viz., Official

Memorandum Dated 29.8.1984 in which he drew our attention to Para-6 which runs as under:

These orders will be applicable only where the transfer of the employee from one organisation to another was/is with the consent of the

organisation under which he was serving earlier, including cases where the individual had secured employment directly on his own volition provided

he had applied through proper channel/with proper permission of the administrative authority concerned.

It is needless to mention that this Official Memorandum speaks about the giving of benefits to the employees who changed the Department.

Learned counsel says that there is no proof that ONGC had given permission to the respondents to appear for the written examination and to

compete for the post in the Geological Survey of India. It is the contention of the learned counsel that before the respondent moved from ONGC

to GSI , he should have obtained written permission. The Tribunal has taken the view that this was not possible for the simple reason that the

respondent applied for the post in GSI through UPSC and got selected. The Tribunal has given a finding in the following words:

This would establish the fact that the applicant while in service in ONGC had applied for the post in the GSI through UPSC and got selected.

Therefore under such circumstances, the GSI cannot now turn round and say that they were ignorant of the whole facts and do not have any

records to examine the whole issue now.

Thus, the Tribunal observed that there are vital basis for the respondent to claim the seniority of the service rendered in ONGC right from 1995

and that the GSI ought to have come forward to help the applicant when it is established that the applicant had worked in the ONGC during the

period 4.12.1961 to 16.5.1966. The Tribunal has also pointed out that the Department had very conveniently avoided to state as to why a

particular stand was taken in the case of Mr. D.B. Dimri and which stand is now being denied. The Tribunal has pointed out that the department

has tried to deny the pensionary benefits to the respondent which is discriminatory and arbitrary. We entirely agree with the reasonings of the

Tribunal and we also note that in fact in spite of 6 years of service when the respondent was selected for the post in GSI, he rendered resignation

and his resignation was properly accepted. That itself would amount that the transition of the respondent from ONCG to GSI was lawful . Had the

ONGC any objection against the respondent appearing for the UPSC examination and competing for the post in GSI, his resignation itself would

not have been accepted. The acceptance of the resignation itself make all the difference. In such circumstances, we do not think that we can take

any different view from findings of the Tribunal . The Writ Petition has no merits. Hence the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected

WPMP is closed.