Director General, Council Of ... vs Dr. (Prof) N.K. Jain
2001 Latest Caselaw 1010 Del

ORDER

Khan, J.

1. The short question involved in this petition was whether Tea Research Association (TRA) was an 'Autonomous Body' and whether respondent was entitled to have the service rendered by him in it counted towards his pensionary benefits.

2. Respondent was working in various organisations till he joined TRA on 23.2.1972 where he worked till 24.1.84. After a break of a month or so, he joined the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) on 21.2.84 and retired from service thereon 31.12.93. After he was granted a pension of Rs. 1,000/- and odd per month, he requested for counting of the service rendered by him in TRA which was turned down. He consulted with the Department of Education & Pensioner Welfare. He thereafter filed OA No. 734/98 and claimed that the term served by him in TRA was liable to be counted towards his pensionary benefits under Rule 37 of CCS Pension Rules and also on the ground that TRA was controlled and financed by the Government and that OM dated 29.8.84 which provided that funding was only criteria qualifying for an 'autonomous body' was not applicable to his case. He also claimed parity with one fellow Scientist Dr. Udupa who was working in ATIRA and who was granted the benefit of service rendered by him therein in similar circumstances.

3. Petitioner resisted his case on the plea that under OM dated 29.8.84 TRA was not autonomous body as it received only 25% of the funding from CSIR and 25% from Tea Board. It was also submitted that TRA was being funded by the CSIR/Government only up to 50% whereas the terms of OM required more than 50% funding from the Government to qualify for being an 'autonomous body'.

4. It was also pointed out that no analogy could be drawn from Dr. Udupa's case as ATIRA was receiving a grant from the Government directly.

5. A perusal of the impugned CAT order shows that the Tribunal sought details of the funds received by TRA and also went through Memorandum of association and other rules and documents and concluded that TRA was a constituent laboratory/unit overseen by the CSIR and that it was receiving up to 50% of the funds from the sharable expenditure of CSIR/Tea Board (financers). It accordingly held that TRA was a 'Central Autonomous Body' on the same paramateria with ATIRA and that respondent's case was similar to that of Dr. Udupa. It accordingly directed petitioners to extend the benefit of counting of the service rendered by respondent in TRA with suitable condensation of period of about 2 1/2 months' service as allowed by them in case of Dr. Udupa. For purpose of determining his qualifying service for pensionary purposes. Petitioners assailed this order on the ground that TRA was not an autonomous body within the meaning of definition contained in OM dated 29.8.84 and, therefore, respondent was not entitled to have his service rendered there counted for pension. But, meanwhile, they have already implemented the impugned CAT order and had paid the arrears to respondent and are also paying him the enhanced monthly pension. That should have ended the controversy but petitioners are still insisting that they had implemented the court order subject to the outcome of this writ petition, therefore, we are again called upon to undertake a repeat exercise to determine whether the respondent was entitled to have his service rendered in TRA counted towards his pensionary benefits.

6. There is no dispute that prior to the issuance of OM dated 29.8.84 the scientific employees of autonomous body financed or controlled by the Government were entitled to have their service rendered in such bodies counted towards their pensionary benefits also in reference to Rule 37 of CCS Pension Rules. Respondent was only claiming to have his service counted from 25.2.72 to 24.1.84. Considering that OM dated 29.8.84, defining the 'autonomous bodies' came into force after that, it is required to be seen whether TRA was controlled and financed by the Government irrespective of the ratio of funding provided in the aforesaid OM.

7. It also transpires from the record that TRA was, in fact, so controlled by CSIR and the Government, as was gathered by the Tribunal from the date furnished by the petitioners and also from its Memorandum of Association and the Rules. Tested thus, TRA surely qualified for being an 'autonomous body' given regard to the extent f control exercised over it by the CSIR and the Government.

That apart, even if the issue was tested in terms of OM dated 29.8.84, it would be too technical to hold that TRA was not an 'autonomous body' because it was receiving funds from CSIR/Government only up to 50% and not more than 50%.

8. It is true that this OM defines 'central autonomous body' as a body which was financed wholly or substantially from cess or Central Government grants and that it defined word 'substantially' to mean that more than 50% of the expenditure of such body was to be met through cess or Cental Government grant. But it could be too technical and inequitable to rigidly adhere to the fraction of the ration provided in the definition contained in the OM. It was petitioner's own case that TRA was being funded up to 50% and going by their thesis, it ought to be 50.1% for a body to qualify to be an 'autonomous body' for purposes of permitting any past service rendered in such body for pensionary purposes. It would be too much to deprive respondent, a Scientist who had rendered service for 20 years or more, of his due pension on such rigid interpretation of the terms of aforesaid OM.

9. It is also noticed that petitioners had given such benefit to one Dr. Udupa and had counted his service rendered in ATIRA towards his pensionary benefits. Their plea that Dr. Udupa's case fell in a separate category because ATIRA was receiving funds directly from the Government does not merit any acceptance because whether a body receives the requisite funding directly or indirectly is immaterial so far as it comes from the Government source. Therefore,m petitioners had no reason to treat the respondent differently and that Tribunal had rightly directed them to treat the respondent's case on the same analogy.

10. Given regard to all this, we hold that TRA was a 'central autonomous body' in the facts and circumstances of the case and that respondent was entitled to have his service rendered in it counted towards his pensionary benefits and that Tribunal was justified in holding so.

11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.