Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Shri Kultar Chand Rana on 27 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.5/2010
% Date of Decision: 27.01.2010
Union of India .... Petitioner
Through Mr. H.K.Gangwani, Advocate
Versus
Shri Kultar Chand Rana .... Respondent
Through Mr.Amit Gaurav, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner, Union of India through Secretary (Power), Ministry
of Power and Ors challenges the order dated 21st April, 2009 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A
No.1442/2008 titled Sh.Kultar Chand Rana v. Union of India and ors
partly allowing the prayer of the respondent to grant pro-rata pension to
him on his work charged benefits with arrears.
The respondent was appointed as wireless operator on whole time
employment service in erstwhile NREB (Northern Regional Power
Committee) and was performing monitoring and co-ordination for
maintenance of uninterrupted electric supply to Northern Region of
India. The respondent continued as such on monthly basis till his
absorption in regular employment when he was appointed with effect
from 5th September, 1986 and his pay was fixed in the revised scale
with effect from 1st January, 1986.
Pursuant to the decision to transfer five Regional Load Dispatch
Centres to the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, NRLDC, New Delhi
was transferred to Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd with effect from
31st December, 1995 and the personnel posted in RLDCs were absorbed
with effect from the actual date of transfer of the respective RLDCs. The
respondent was transferred from NRLDC (NREB) to Power Grid
Corporation of India on 31st December, 1995 and an option was
obtained from the respondent for pensionary benefits available to him
under the Central Government Rules in force at the time of his
retirement.
The respondent superannuated with effect from 30th April, 2007
and requested for release of pension and service gratuity which were
denied to him on the ground that his services prior to his absorption
were not computable for the purpose of ascertaining his entitlement for
the pensionary benefit.
The Tribunal has relied on Union of India v. O.P.Sharma, 2002 (1)
CLR 1088 where a Division Bench had held that for claiming pro-rata
pension it is nowhere stated that an employee should have rendered ten
years of service as a permanent employee. In O.P.Sharma (supra)
respondent No.1 had joined CPWD on 8th November, 1947 and had
rendered approximately 14 years of service before his absorption in
ONGC and he was declared quasi permanent with effect from 1st
February, 1951. The Division Bench had also referred to DOPT's O.M
dated 21st April, 1972 and had held that the rule does not distinguish
between the Government servant absorbed in public interest and on his
own application.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that if the
previous service of the respondent is taken into consideration, his
service on attaining superannuation would be more than 10 years and
he would be entitled for pro-rata pension. The respondent was
transferred from NRLDC to Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd on
permanent absorption basis and an option of the respondent for
pensionary benefits available to him under the Central Government
Pension scheme was also obtained. In the circumstances, the
petitioners are not entitled to contend that the service prior to
absorption is not to be taken into consideration for computing his
service pension. The Petitioners therefore, cannot contend that the
respondent did not have more than 10 years of service on
superannuating. Consequently the respondent is entitled for pro-rata
pension on his attaining the age of superannuation and the judgment of
the Tribunal cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances. There
are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal dated 21st April, 2009 in O.A No.1442/2008 and order dated
20th November, 2009 in C.P No.373/2009. The writ petition is without
any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
JANUARY 27, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
