Delhi High Court

U.O.I & Ors vs Ex-Major B.S.Chhabra on 13 June, 2014

      $~26
      * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                +       W.P.(C)No.3367-68/2006

      %                       Reserved on: 29th May, 2014
                              Date of decision: 13th June, 2014

      U.O.I & ORS                                  ..... Petitioners
                         Through :    Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with
                                      Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Adv.
                         versus

      EX-MAJOR B.S.CHHABRA               ..... Respondent
                    Through : Mr. A.K. Behera, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL, J.

1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 2nd August, 2005

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in

C.P.No.474/2004 in O.A.No.3147/2001 inter alia on the ground

that while exercising the contempt jurisdiction, it was not open to

the Tribunal to grant relief which had not been granted even under

the order, violation whereof was contended by the respondent.

2. We may briefly note the facts giving rise to the present writ

petition.

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 1 of 24

3. Major B.S. Chhabra, (respondent herein) was commissioned

in the Indian Army in September, 1963 as an Emergency

Commissioned Officer. He worked till 1967 whereafter he was

granted whole time commission (temporary) in the NCC with

effect from 18th October, 1967.

4. It is undisputed that so far as tenure in the NCC is

concerned, it was initially subjected to yearly later for three years,

grant of extension of tenure in terms of the Government of India

letter No.5431/NCC.PERS(D)/776-III/D(GS.III) dated 21st

December, 1963. The last extension granted to the petitioner was

with effect from 18th October, 1978 to 17th October, 1981 at 9

Assam Bn. NCC Jorhat.

5. On 4th April, 1979, the respondent proceeded on annual

leave from his unit and did not report back. Consequently, the

officer was served with a show cause notice calling upon him to

explain the reasons for his unauthorised absence from duty. On 5 th

June, 1979, the court of inquiry held to look into the absence of the

respondent declared his over stay of leave unauthorised.

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 2 of 24

6. Based on this court of inquiry, on 14th December, 1979, a

memorandum was issued to the respondent wherein it was

mentioned that he was absent from duty with effect from 4 th April,

1979 without proper leave and required him to explain as to why

disciplinary proceedings be not taken against him for unauthorized

absence and disobedience of orders. The services of the respondent

were thereafter struck off from the strength of the NCC with effect

from 18th October, 1981.

7. The respondent filed an application being O.A.

No.3147/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench complaining that he was communicated the order

of striking off with effect from 18th October, 1981 only by the

order dated 18th January, 1994. He sought an order from the

Tribunal that such order be quashed and set aside; that a direction

be issued to deem the applicant/respondent as on service till 17th

October, 1992 which he claimed to be his date of superannuation

and to grant arrears of pay and allowances with effect from August,

1979 till the date of his retirement. The respondent however,

prayed for pro rata pensionary benefits with interest on his

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 3 of 24 monetary claim. This petition was contested by the Director

General of the NCC.

8. O.A. No.3647/2001 was decided by the Tribunal by an order

dated 23rd May, 2003 partly granting the prayer made by the

respondent. The Tribunal held that there was nothing on record

which show that the respondent was given any extension with the

NCC beyond October, 1981 and held that he had been in service

from 1967 when he joined NCC till October, 1981 when the last

three year extension in the NCC expired. The relevant portion of

the order dated 23rd May, 2003 in this regard requires to be

extracted for the reason that the entire claim of the respondent turns

on the same. The same reads as follows:

"At the same time nothing emerges on record showing that the applicant was given any extension beyond October, 1981. It would, therefore, be seen that the applicant had been in service from October, 1969 when he joined NCC till October, 1981 from his last three year extension in the NCC expired. He would be entitled to draw pay and allowances from April, 1979 to October, 1981 and to grant of pensionary benefits keeping the above qualifying period. The applicant's plea for treating him as having continued in service till the attainment of age of Superannuation on 17.10.1992 has no basis in law and is accordingly replied. His letter dated 29.4.1985

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 4 of 24 seeking premature retirement is also of no avail to him as his services stood terminated much earlier in October, 1981 on 19.10.1981, when his last extension expired and was not extended further. Applicant is entitled for terminal benefits in law upto that period. His leave for the period upto May, 1979 should be sanctioned and the period from that date till his date of retirement shall be treated as leave as admissible. He would also be entitled for some costs for the inconvenience and difficulties which he had been subjected to.

In the result, the O.A. succeeds partly and is according disposed of. Respondents shall treat the applicant as having been in service till 17.10.1981 and pay him salary upto that date and pension as well as pensionary benefits admissible in law. They shall also pay his arrears from November, 1981 to date with simple interest @ 9% from November, 1981 till the date of actual disbursement. Respondent shall also pay to the applicant the cost of the litigation quantified at Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only). This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

9. The petitioner would emphasize before this court that the

Tribunal had not held that the respondent was entitled to grant of

pensionary benefits but had required the petitioner to pay the same,

if the pensionary benefits were admissible in law. It appears that

by an order passed on 12th July, 2004, the petitioner directed as

follows:

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 5 of 24 "(a) Regularization of period of absence from 4th April 1979 to 17th October 1981 as EOL without pay may be sanctioned since no other leave has been found left to the credit of the officer;

(b) Counting of above EOL i.e, from 4th April, 1979 to 17th October 1981 towards the petitioner's qualifying service for the purpose of pension may be approved;

10. In the meantime, the respondent filed contempt petition

which was registered as C.P. No.156/2004 before the Central

Administrative Tribunal complaining violation of the judgment

dated 23rd May, 2003 by the petitioner. The petitioners took the

stand that the order dated 23rd May, 2003 had been implemented by

the petitioners vide its letter dated 12th July, 2004, which for the

purposes of convenience is extracted hereunder:

"Sub : IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONOURABLE CAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF NCC/PC/11567/MAJ BS CHHABRA (RETD) V/S UNION OF INDIA DATED 23 MAY 2003 IN O.A.NO.3147/2001.

1. In view of the above judgment, the sanction of President of India is hereby accorded to treat Major BS Chhabra in serice by regularizing the period of his

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 6 of 24 absence from 04 Apr 79 to 17 Oct 81 as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL)

2. The officer is entitled to draw arrears of pay and allowances upto 17 Oct 1981 as admissible with simple interest of 9% with effect from November 1981 till date of actual payment.

3. DSOP Fund balance in the name of the officer also be paid to the officer with interest applicable CDA(O), Pune will intimate the exact amount to enable us issue allotment of funds charged expenditure.

4. Cost of litigation of Rs.3000/- be paid to the officer, as awarded by CAT, Delhi.

5. The entire period of absence shall be counted towards terminal pensionary benefits. The pensionary benefits will, however, be admissible as per the provisions of CCS/(Pension) Rule 1972 as amended from time to time after taking cognizance of his length of service.

6. The PCDA(P) are requested to work out the details of amount of benefits, if any, in respect of above named officer and intimate the same to enable us to issue allotment of funds under charged expenditure.

7. This issue with concurrence of Min of Defence (Finance) vide I.D.No.972/GS/04 dated 17/5/04."

11. So far as pensionary benefits was concerned, the petitioner

informed the Tribunal that the same would be required to be

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 7 of 24 considered under the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules after

taking into account the length of the respondent's service. The

contempt petition being C.P. No.156/2004 was disposed of by the

Tribunal directing the petitioner to issue pension payment order

(PPO) in terms of the order dated 12th July, 2004.

12. The petitioners were of the view that under the CCS

(Pension) Rules, the respondent was not entitled to any pension

benefit for the reason that he had not completed 20 years of

qualifying service. Aggrieved by the non-issuance of the PPO and

non-payment of interest on the claimed pensionary benefits, the

respondents filed the second contempt petitioner which was

registered as C.P. No.474/2004. The petitioner contends that a

detailed affidavit was filed in response to the notice to show cause

enclosing the aforenoticed letter dated 12th July, 2004. The

petitioner took the stand that in the original order dated 23 rd May,

2003 of the Tribunal, it was clearly stated that only such pension as

is admissible in law was to be paid. The Tribunal had not returned

a finding that petitioner was entitled to payment of pension.

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 8 of 24

13. So far as service of the petitioner is concerned, in view of the

order dated 23rd May, 2003, the tenure of the petitioner with the

NCC expired by 17th of March, 1981. Therefore, counting his

service with the NCC 18th October, 1967 to 17th October, 1981, the

petitioner had completed only 18 years of service. The petitioner

stated before the Tribunal that under the CCS (Pension) Rules,

pension can be granted only on completion of 20 years and, since

the respondent had completed only 18 years of service he was not

entitled for the same. The Tribunal was also informed that this

position was notified to the respondent by letters dated 3 rd August,

2004 and 30th November, 2004.

14. We may note that to support the above stand, the petitioner

had placed before the Tribunal a communication from the Ministry

of Defence dated 1st October, 1986 written to the Director General

NCC stating as follows:

"I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the extension of pensionary benefits to NCC Whole Time commissioned officers who have not been accepted for grant of permanent commission in National Cadet Corps but have completed 20 years of service before retirement in terms of Government of India, Department of Personnel A.R. OM No.3n(16)-

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 9 of 24 Pension Unit/no dated 30 Dec 1980. This will be subject to refund of gratuity with interest, if any, for NCC service or previous military/civil service.

The provisions of this letter will be effective from 30 Dec 1980."

15. The above communication bears out that pension become

payable to whole time commissioned officer only pursuant to the

order dated 1st October, 1986 which mandated completion of 20

years of service before retirement.

16. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the writ petitioner by

its order dated 2nd August, 2005 holding that the respondent having

completed 10 years of service prior to voluntary retirement from

Defence Ministry, is entitled to pro rata pension on completion of

10 years of service and that the bar of 20 years of service and

prospective effect given to Rule 49 of the Pension Rules with effect

from 1st January, 1986 is misconceived. A direction was made to

the Government to issue the pension payment order and take the

necessary steps to disburse the same with interest to the respondent

within two weeks of the receipt of the order.

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 10 of 24 Aggrieved by the directions made in the order dated 2 nd

August, 2005, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. First

and foremost, there is nothing on record to support the finding of

the Tribunal that the respondent had completed 10 years of service

before he sought voluntary retirement from the Defence Ministry.

The respondent was unfortunately absent from duties and his

services were terminated. However, the Tribunal struck down the

termination of the respondent herein directing that the tenure has

come to an end only on expiry of the last extension of his tenure in

October, 1981.

18. Mr. A.K. Behera, learned counsel for the respondent has

vehemently contended that the respondent is entitled to relief under

the letter dated 23rd September, 1988 issued by the Ministry of

Defence. According to him, by virtue of the government order,

officers who have rendered temporary service of not less than 10

years would be eligible for grant of superannuation invalid pension

retirement gratuity and family pension at the same scale as is

admissible to permanent employee under the CCS (Pension) Rules,

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 11 of 24 1972 subject to refund of gratuity, if any, with interest for NCC

service or previous military /civil service. This submission fails to

note the fact that this letter applied only to the "NCC whole time

officers retired or superannuated or are declared permanent in

capacity for further government service by the appropriate medical

authority." The government clearly states in para 2 of this letter

that the provision would apply only to such officers who have not

been granted permanent commission but were in service on 1st

January, 1986.

So far as the service of the petitioner are concerned, it came

to an end on expiry of the tenure in terms of the Tribunal order. He

neither superannuated nor was declared incapacitated for further

service. He was also not in service on 1st January, 1986. Reliance

on the circular of 23rd September, 1986, therefore, is wholly

misconceived.

19. We may note the stand of the respondent in the affidavit

dated 13th April, 2005 filed by him in contempt proceedings which

has been placed on record. In para 9 of this affidavit, while

referring to the letter dated 12th July, 2004, the respondent has

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 12 of 24 himself stated that according to the petitioner the period of his

absence shall not be counted towards terminal pensionary benefits

and that pensionery benefits would be only as is admissible as per

rule 49(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. In para 11 the

respondent challenged the applicability of the Government Order

contained in the communication dated 1st October, 1986. He

claimed that he having completed more than 10 years of service

was entitled to pro rata pension.

20. Before us, so far as his claim for pro rata pension is

concerned, the respondent has placed reliance on Rule 49 of the

CCS (Pension) Rules which reads as follows:-

"49. Amount of Pension (1) In the case of Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service."

(2)(b) In the case of a government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these Rules before completing qualifying service of thirty-three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 13 of 24 rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem."

21. This rule clearly applies only to a government servant

retiring in accordance with the provision of the Rules.

22. Our attention is drawn by Ms.Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate

to the scheme of the CCS (Pension) Rules. It is pointed out that so

far as pension is concerned, it is governed by Chapter 5 of the CCS

(Pension) Rules which is titled as "Classes of pension and

conditions governing their grant". Rule 35 refers to

superannuation pension which is granted to a government servant

who is retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement.

Under Rule 36, retiring pension is admissible to a government

servant who retires, or is retired in advance of the age of

compulsory retirement in accordance with the provision of Rule 48

or 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules or Rule 56 of the Fundamental

Rules or Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulation. It is also

admissible to the government servant who, on being declared

surplus, opts for voluntary retirement in accordance with the rule

29 of these rules.

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 14 of 24

23. So far as computation of the amount of the pension is

concerned, the same is provided in Chapter 7 titled "Regulation of

Amounts of Pensions". Rule 48 (1) enables the government servant

who has completed 30 years of qualifying service to retire from

service or may be required by the Appointing Authority to retire

him in public interest. Sub Rule (1)(a) of the Rule 48 enables the

government servant to elect for voluntary retirement while Rule 48

(a) is concerned with voluntary retirement on completion of 20

years of qualifying service.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this

court the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported at (2001) 4

SCC 309 Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar wherein a

similar contention raised by the respondent was rejected. The

observations of the Supreme Court on the applicability of the

clause (2)(b) of Rule 49 may usefully be extracted in extenso and

reads as follows:

"On the basis of Rule 49, it has been contended that qualifying service for getting pension would be ten years. In our view, this submission is without any basis. Qualifying service is defined under Rule 3(q) to mean service rendered while on duty or otherwise

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 15 of 24 which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these rules.

Rule 13 provides that qualifying service by a government servant commences from the date from which he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. This rule nowhere provides that qualifying service for getting pension is 10 years. On the contrary, there is specific provision that if a government servant retires before completing qualifying service of 10 years because of his attaining the age of compulsory retirement, he would not get pension but would get the amount of service gratuity calculated at the rate of half months emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service. In these appeals, we are not required to consider other conditions prescribed for qualifying service as it is admitted that respondent-members of the BSF have completed more than 10 years of qualifying service. Further clause 2(a) of Rule 49 specifically provides for grant of pension if a government servant retires after completing qualifying service of not less than 33 years. The amount of pension is to be calculated fifty per cent of average emoluments subject to maximum provided therein. Clause 2(b) upon which much reliance is placed indicates that in case of a government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of the Rules before completing qualifying service of 33 years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under clause (a) and in no case, the amount of pension shall be less than Rs.375/- per month. This would only mean that in case where government servant retires on superannuation i.e. the age of compulsory retirement as per service conditions or in accordance with the

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 16 of 24 CCS (Pension) Rules, after completing 10 years of qualifying service, he would get pension which is to be calculated and quantified as provided under clause (2) of Rule 49. This clause would cover cases of retirement under Rules 35 and 36, that is, voluntary retirement after 20 years of qualifying service, compulsory retirement after prescribed age and such other cases as provided under the Rules. However, this has nothing to do with the quitting of service after tendering resignation. It is also to be stated that Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules specifically provides that resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service unless resignation is submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment under the government where service qualifies. Hence, on the basis of Rule 49 member of BSF who has resigned from his post after completing more than 10 years of qualifying service but less than 20 years would not be eligible to get pensionary benefit. There is no other provision in the CCS (Pension) Rules giving such benefit to such government servants."

25. We may also refer to the recent pronouncement of the

Supreme Court reported at 2008 (10) SCC 115 Jacob v. Director

of Geology and Mining and Another. The Supreme Court was

considering entitlement under the Pension Rules framed by the

Tamil Nadu and the Central Government. The Court observed that

the scheme of the rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu

was identical to that of the CCS (Pension) Rules. So far as Sub-

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 17 of 24 rule 2(b) of Rule 49 in Chapter 7 of the CCS (Pension) Rules

(referred to as CCSP Rules in the judgment) is concerned, the same

related to Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules ("the TNP

Rules" for short).

The Supreme Court has categorically laid down that Rule 42

(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules does not relate to the entitlement of

pension nor does it prescribe the condition for eligibility. The

following observations of the Supreme Court clearly apply to the

present consideration:

"18. The appellant relied on Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (`TNP Rules' for short) to contend that on completion of 10 years of service, a government servant is entitled to pension. Relevant portion of the said rule is extracted below:

"43. (2) In the case of a government servant, retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than 10 years, the amount of pension shall be appropriate amount as set out below namely:"

(emphasis supplied)

As similar contention is frequently raised under the corresponding Rule 49(2)(b) of CCS Pension Rules (`CCSP Rules' for short), we will for convenience refer to the corresponding provisions of

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 18 of 24 CSSP Rules also.

19. Rule 43(2) relied on by the petitioner falls under Chapter VI of TNP Rules (corresponding to Rule 49(2)(b) in chapter VII of CCSP Rules) dealing with `Regulation of amount of pension'. The said rule relates to quantum and lays down how the pension of a retired government servant should be calculated if he is entitled to pension. Entitlement to pension is governed by Chapter V of the said Rules, which enumerates the classes of pension and conditions for entitlement. The enumerated classes of pension are :

Classes of Pension (vide Chapter V CCSP TNP of Pension Rules) Rules Rules

(i) Superannuation pension Rule 35 Rule 32

(ii) Retiring pension Rule 36 Rule 33

(iii) Pension on absorption in or under a Rule 37 Rule 34 corporation, company or body owned/controlled by State/Central Government

(iv) Invalid pension Rule 38 Rule 36

(v) Compensation pension payable on Rule 39 Rule 38 discharge owing to abolition of the post

(vi) Compulsory retirement pension Rule 40 Rule 39

(vii) Compassionate allowance to Rule 41 Rule 40 Government servants who forfeit their pension on being dismissed or removed

20. A government servant, whose case does not fall under any of the classes of pensions enumerated in Chapter V, is not entitled to pension. If a government servant is not able to make out entitlement to any class of pension specified in chapter V of the pension Rules, there is no question

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 19 of 24 of having recourse to the rules in the chapter dealing with regulation of amount of pension (chapter VI of TNP Rules or chapter VII of CCSP Rules) for determining the quantum of pension.

21. Admittedly the petitioner was not `superannuated'; nor was he absorbed in any corporation/company/body owned by state/central government; nor did he retire on account of any infirmity which incapacitated him for service; nor was he discharged on abolition of his post. Nor is he claiming compassionate allowance (on being dismissed/removed after putting in service of an extent which would entitle him to pension but for the dismissal/removal). The only other categories of pension are compulsory retirement pension and the retiring pension. A government servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty, may be granted by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension at a rate not less than two-third admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. If a government servant is not otherwise admissible to pension, he cannot obviously be granted pension on compulsory retirement. There is no such grant in this case. That leaves us with retiring pension.

22. Rule 33 of TNP Rules provides that a retiring pension shall be granted to a government servant who retires, or is retired, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 42 of the said Rules. Rule 42 of TNP Rules provides that a government servant, who under fundamental Rule 56(d), retires voluntarily or is required by the appointing authority to retire in public interest shall be entitled to a retiring pension.

(corresponding Rule 36 of CCSP Rules which provides that a retiring pension shall be granted to a Government servant who retires, or is retired, in

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 20 of 24 advance of the age of compulsory retirement in accordance with the provisions of Rules 48 or 48-A of those Rules or Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules or Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulations and to a Government servant who on being declared surplus, opts for voluntary retirement in accordance with Rule 29 of those Rules). The provision relating to retiring pension makes it clear that a minimum of 20 years qualifying service is required for retiring pension. It does not entitle a government servant to retiring pension on completion of ten years service. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to retiring pension.

23. The petitioner contends that if the minimum service for entitlement to retiring pension was 20 years and not 10 years, Rule 43(2) would not have stated "qualifying service of not less than 10 years". He contended that as Rule 43(2) of the TNP Rules (Rule 49(2)(b) of CCSP Rules) refers to "not less than 10 years service", any government servant who has put in service of 10 years or more is entitled to retiring pension. The said contention is misconceived. As stated earlier, the said rule does not relate to `entitlement' of pension nor does it prescribe the conditions for eligibility, but only provides how the amount of pension should be calculated in cases where the retiring Government servant is entitled to pension under the chapter V of the pension rules. The said Rule regulates the `amount' of pension not only in case of retiring pension, but in case of all classes of pension. Under Chapter V, in certain situations, a Government servant may be eligible for pension even where the service is less than ten years. Rules 32, 36, and 38 of TNP Rules (Rules 35, 38 and 39 of CCSP Rules) do not prescribe any minimum service for being entitled to pension, where the cessation of

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 21 of 24 service is on account of superannuation, or on account of bodily or mental infirmity or on account of abolition of his post. When Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (Rule 49(2)(2) of CCSP Rules) refers to payment of pension to a person who has a qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it does not mean that the minimum period of service prescribed for retirement pension is reduced to 10 years or that government servants who are dismissed/removed/compulsorily retired by way of punishment, or those who voluntarily retire before reaching the age of superannuation with less than 20 years of qualifying service, become entitled to pension. Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (Rule 49(2)(b) of CCSP Rules), as noticed earlier, comes into play only when the Government servant is entitled to any of the classes of pension enumerated under Chapter V of the Pension Rules. Therefore, when Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (or Rule 49(2)(b) of CCSP Rule) dealing with the quantum of pension refers to a government servant retiring in accordance with the said rules after completing qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it does not mean that pension is payable to persons who have not completed the required minimum number of years (20 years) of service or to persons who have forfeited their service on dismissal/removal from service. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to pension."

26. The respondent had set up a stand before the Central

Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3147/2001 that he had

superannuated in 1992 which submission was not accepted by the

Tribunal in its order dated 23rd May, 2003. It had been held that

WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 22 of 24 the respondents services came to an end on expiry of the period of

last extension in October, 1981.

This finding was never challenged by the respondent and has

attained finality.

27. The respondent has never claimed that the pension was

admissible on completion of 10 years of service.

28. A bare reading of Sub Rule (2)(b) of Rule 49 shows that it

applies only to the government servant who retires in accordance