Director Of Education vs S.D. Mohala
2002 Latest Caselaw 1221 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. By this writ petition the petitioner calls in question the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the 'Tribunal') dated 31st January, 2002 whereby the petitioner was directed to take into account the service of the respondent rendered in Rehabilitation Finance Administration, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (for short the 'RFA') between 7th January, 1957 and 27th October, 1960 for purpose of computing pensionary benefits.

2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:

The respondent joined the RFA on 7th January, 1957. He continued in the said Department till 27th October, 1960. On 28th October, 1960, the respondent joined the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tees Hazari, Delhi. Thereafter on 1st April, 1964, the respondent was transferred to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi. On 24th June, 1971, the respondent was again transferred from Sales Tax Department to the Directorate of Education, Delhi, from which Department the respondent retired on 31st March, 1988. The service of the respondent from 7th January, 1957 to 27th October, 1960, prior to his joining the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tis Hazari, Delhi, on 28th October, 1960, was not counted by the petitioner for the purposes of calculating his pensionary benefits. Since the petitioner failed to grant any relief to the respondent, the latter filed on Original Application being O.A. No. 1172/2000 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on the basis of the documents placed before it held the respondent entitled to take cognizance of his past service with RFA for the purpose of computing retiral benefits. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to count the respondent's service rendered from 7th January, 1957 to 27th October, 1960 in the RFA for the purposes of pensionary benefits. At this stage, it will be apposite to extract para 6 of the order of the Tribunal as it details the reasons of the Tribunal for accepting the claim of the respondent. Para 6 reads as follows:

"Whereas the applicant has filed some documents such as LPC and memorandum regarding his relief from RFA (Annexure A4), respondents have not adduced any evidence in contrast to the same, such as service book, letter of appointment etc. However, the learned counsel of the respondents drew out attention to Annexure A-3 dated 28-10-1960 relating to recruitment to the post of LDCs on the basis of which the applicant was employed as LDC in the office of DC. The learned counsel, by this document, attempted at proving that the applicant was selected for the post of LDC by the office of DC by way of fresh recruitment. From this document we find that the same too does not mention that the applicant's services in RFA had been declared surplus. Even if its is assumed on the basis of this document that this was a fresh appointment, the respondents cannot be absolved from the responsibility of acting in terms of OM dated 3-12-1977. In terms of this OM the services rendered in the Central Government, which is the case here, and of entry in another service under the Central Government, with or without break, have to be counted towards pension and/or gratuity to the extent admissible under the rules. The applicant joined the services of Union Territory where this OM of 3-12-1977 is equally applicable as to the Central Government. We find from the evidence produced by the applicant that there has been no break after the release of the applicant from RFA and joining the office of DC. The provisions of this circular are definitely applicable to the claim of the applicant and as such he is entitled to cognizance of his past service with RFA for purposes of retiral benefits."

3. Thus it is apparent that the Tribunal not only relied on documents, filed by the respondent but it also relied upon O.M. dated 3rd December, 1977 in reaching the conclusion that the service rendered by the respondent in the RFA is required to be counted towards the pension admissible to the respondent.

4. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Nothing has been produced before us by the appellant which could show that the respondent's appointment in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tees Hazari was a fresh appointment. It also needs to be noted that there is not even a single day's break in the service of the respondent while switching over from the RFA Department to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tees Hazari, Delhi. The respondent worked in the RFA Department till October 27, 1960 and on the next day viz., October 28, 1960, he joined the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tis Hazari, Delhi. Even if there was a break in service of the respondent and he was given fresh appointment in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tis Hazari, Delhi, the period of break was liable to be condoned in view of the principle laid down in the Government of India O.M. No. F.3(15)/EV(A)/76 dated December 3, 1977 which reads as under:

"The services rendered in the Central Govt., Autonomous bodies by the employees who left the services of those bodies any time prior to their take over by the Central Govt. who enter/joined services under the central Govt. with or without break will be allowed to be counted towards pension/gratuity to the extent admissible under the rules at the such persons retire/retired from GOI service, the period of break, if any being condoned."

5. Thus drawing upon the principle embodied in the aforesaid om, the entire length of the service rendered by the respondent from January 7, 1957 to October 27, 1960 in the office of the R.F.A. Department was required to be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits.

6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition stands dismissed.