Union Of India vs P.M. Hinduja
2001 Latest Caselaw 1694 Del

JUDGMENT

Sharda Aggarwal, J.

1. Petitioner has directed this petition against the judgment dated 15th February, 1999 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal), by which O.A. No. 818/98 filed by the respondent was allowed.

2. The respondent had joined Indian Meteorological Department on 9th March, 1948 where he was declared a permanent L.D.C. w.e.f. 1st January, 1956. He was sent on deputation to O.N.G.C. w.e.f. 22/24th September, 1959. There he was permanently absorbed w.e.f. 7th June, 1962. The respondent's technical resignation from Government Service was accepted with effect from the said date. The question for consideration is whether respondent on absorption in public sector undertaking i.e. O.N.G.C. was eligible for pro-rata pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity based on length of his qualifying service under the Government till the date of his absorption. On the date of his absorption in O.N.G.C., the retirement benefits of his service rendered with Government were regulated by memorandum dated 10th November, 1960 issued by Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure, New Delhi). According to the said memorandum, retirement benefits of service rendered by a Government servant, before his absorption in public sector undertaking, were admissible equal to what the Government would have contributed, had the officer been on Contributory Provident Fund terms with 2% simple interest memorandum dated 16th June, 1967 providing revised terms and condition of pro-rata pension etc. In connection with absorption of Government employees in public sector undertakings but restricted the revised benefits only to those who absorbed on or before 16th June, 1967. The relevant part of the revised instructions was as under;-

i) A permanent Government servant with not less that 10 years qualifying service on absorption in public undertaking was eligible for pro-rate pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity base don length of his qualifying service under Government till date absorption . The pension was to be calculated on the basis of average emoluments immediately before absorption.

ii) The pro-rata pension, gratuity etc. admissible in respect of the service rendered under the Government was disbursible only after the date the Government servant is being normally super-annuated, had he continued in service.

3. The directions of OM dated 16th June, 1967 were, however, made applicable prospectively, Later on in view of Supreme Court Judgment in the case of J.S. Thiruvengadhan Vs. Secretary, Government of India, , by another office memorandum dated 3rd January, 1995, directions of OM dated 16th June, 1967 were made applicable retrospectively, subject, however, to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the officer absorbed with public sector undertaking should have received retirement benefits as per OM dated 16th November, 1960 within one year from the date of his/her permanent absorption. The respondent had claimed concession envisaged in the OM dated 10th November, 1960 vide his letter dated 15th March, 1963. The Government, however, did not reply the said letter and no amount equal to the amount of what the Government would have contributed, has there been Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) for the pensionable service respondent had rendered while he was in Government service as per the said OM, was paid to him. The O.N.G.C. vide its letter dated 21/27th August, 1964, after the respondent's permanent absorption w.e.f. 8th June, 1962, had requested the Government that the amount standing in respondent's G.P.F. Account for his Government service may be transferred to the O.N.G.C. so that the same may be credited to respondent's C.P.F. Account in O.N.G.C. The Government later on transferred the amount of Rs. 3,534/- which was the balance in respondent's G.P.F. Account to O.N.G.C. which was credited to his C.P.F. account. The respondent when he came to know about the Supreme Court judgment, referred above, applied on 8th August, 1994 for extending the benefits envisaged under OM dated 16th June, 1967 to him. After considerable correspondence, the Sanctioning Authority granted the respondent pro-rata pension in terms on OM dated 16th June, 1967 read with Rule 37 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 w.e.f. 9th March, 1978 i.e. the deemed date of his qualifying service on completion of 30 years service, his date of joining the Government service being 9th March, 1948. This pension was sanctioned in June/July, 1997. However, the Sanctioning Authority claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,06,044/- allegedly being contributory provident fund paid to the officer under OM dated 10th November, 1960 Along with interest up to 31st May, 1997 out of the pension amount of Rs. 96,889/- and death-cum-retirement gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,344/-. As the estimated deduction was more than the pro-rata pension, respondent was informed that an amount of Rs. 7,811/- was still outstanding against him which was recoverable from his pension. Aggrieved by this order he had filed the O.A. before the Tribunal which culminated int he impugned order.

4. The Tribunal after considering the record and arguments of counsel for the parties had come to the conclusion that the amount which was transferred by the Government to O.N.G.C. was only the respondent's own G.P.F. and it did not include the Government's contribution in terms of OM dated 10th November, 1960. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the pro-rata pension was allowed only subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and one of the conditions laid down in OM dated 3rd January, 1995 was that the officer should have received retirement benefits as per OM dated 10th November, 1960 and even if it is held that the respondent did not receive any retrial benefits, he was not eligible for pro-rata pension. Vide OM dated 3rd January, 1995 the benefits of OM dated 16th June, 1967 were extended to all Central Government employees who were absorbed in the Public Sector Undertakings prior to 16th June, 1967 subject to following conditions:-

i) The absorbee should satisfy all the terms and conditions regarding grant of retirement benefits as laid down in the Ministry of finance, Department of Expenditure OM dated 16.6.1967, as amended Vide OM No. 44(B)/E.V./71 dated 19.6.1972. The question of proportionate pension will into arise in cases where an officer, at the time of absorption, had rendered less than 10 years of service under Government and was not entitled to pension. In such cases, he will only be eligible to proportionate service gratuity in lieu of pension and to D.C.R. Gratuity based on the length of service.

ii. The absorbee should have proceeded to a Central PSUs in public interest and absorbed therein prior to 16.6.1967.

iii. The absorbee should have received the retirement benefits as per Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No. F. (33)/EVA/60 dated 10th November, 1960, viz. an amount equal to what Government would have contributed had the officer been on contributory provident fund terms under Government, together with simple interest there on at 2% for the period of his pensionable service under Government, should have been credited to his Contributory Provident Fund Account with the PSU as an opening balance within one year from the date of his/her permanent absorption.

iv. Ministry of Finance, etc. are requested to settle the claims of the Central Government employees who were permanently absorbed in the Central PSUs prior to 16th June, 1967 on the above basis, on receipt of a formal request from each such employee. CPF benefits received in terms of Ministry of Finance OM dated 10.11.1960 will have to be refunded by the said employee to Government together with interest at the rate applicable to Government together with interest at the rate applicable to CPF accumulations on the date of such refund and calculated in the same manner as interest of GPF is worked out.

5. According to these conditions, C.P.F. benefits received in terms of OM dated 10th November, 1960 were to be refunded by the said employee to the Government together with interest at the rate applicable to Government together with interest at the rate applicable to C.P.F. accumulations on the date of said refund and calculated in the same manner as interest on G.P.F. is worked out. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in fact the deduction of Rs. 1,06,044/- was made by the Government on the assumption that the respondent had been paid C.P.F. amount equal to the contribution of the Government for the service rendered by him with 2% simple interest as per OM dated 10th November, 1960 whereas in fact no such contribution was paid by the Government and the amount of Rs. 3,534/- was not the amount of Government contribution but the respondent's own amount standing in his G.P.F. account, on which interest had accrued. Since there was no contribution from the Government side in terms of OM dated 10th November, 1960, there was no question of deduction of the said amount from the pro-rata pension accrued to the respondent in terms of OM dated 16th June, 1967 read with OM dated 3rd January, 1995. The Tribunal rightly returned the finding that the applicant was entitled to the benefits of pro-rate pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity under Oms dated 16th June, 1967 and 3rd January, 1995. The Tribunal correctly returned the finding that the amount of Rs. 3,534/- transferred to respondent's account by the Government was his own G.P.F. and not the Government's contribution towards C.P.F. in terms of OM dated 10th November, 1960. The Tribunal has also correctly held that the respondent had become eligible for receiving pro-rata pension on completion of 30 years qualifying service as per Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner had in fact allowed him pension on completion of 30 years of his deemed service.

6. We have been informed that the Tribunal order has already been complied with and the respondent is being paid pro-rata pension pursuant thereto. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The same cannot be faulted with. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.