SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.)
PRADUMAN KUMAR JAIN
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER.
Civil Appeal No. 4670 of 1994 {From the Judgment and Order dated 24-10-1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 770 of 1988}, decided on July 11, 1994
Advocates appeared
Vijay Hansaria, Advocate, for M/s Jain Hansaria and Co., for the Appellant; V.C. Mahajan, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdal and Ms Kitty Kumaramangalam, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 - Rule 13 - Appointment as Senior Engineer - Pension - Cadre - Seniority list - Appellant joined Central Government service - He was selected for appointment as Senior Engineer in National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), a Central Government Undertaking - He joined NTPC - No specific order confirming appellant in service of Central Government was issued - Question before Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal), was whether appellant was entitled to pro rata pension for period of his service under Central Government - Appellant joined Central Government service on Technical Assistant in the office of Director General of Supplies & Disposals and worked there - On he joined Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) as Assistant Meteorologist after being selected through Union Public Service Commission - He was placed on probation for a period of two years - He was permitted to cross first efficiency bar - While working with IMD he was selected for appointment as Senior Engineer in NTPC – Held, person is said to hold a post in a substantive capacity when he holds it for an indefinite period, especially of long duration in contradistinction to a person who holds it for a definite or a temporary period or holds it on probation subject to confirmation - If appointment is to a post and capacity in which appointment is made is of indefinite duration, if Public Service Commission has been consulted and has approved, if tests prescribed have been taken and passed, if probation has been prescribed and has been approved one may well say that post was held by incumbent in a substantive capacity - Combined reading of two Office Memorandums reproduced above support appellants contention that he stood confirmed in post of Assistant Meteorologist before he resigned Central Government service but it is not necessary for Court to go into effect of two Memorandums - Examining facts and circumstances of this case in light of law laid down by this Court in Baleshwar Dass case ,only conclusion which can be drawn is that appellant was working as Assistant Meteorologist in a substantive capacity - Respondents to compute and pay pension and other terminal benefits due to appellant under rules and all other relevant orders/regulations, within three months of receipt of this judgment - Appellant shall be entitled to 12% interest on arrears of payment to which he becomes entitled as a result of this judgment - Court allow appeal in above terms and set aside judgment of Tribunal.
Judgment
KULDIP SINGH, J.- Special leave granted.
2. The appellant joined Central Government service on 2-3-1974. He was selected for appointment as Senior Engineer in the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), a Central Government Undertaking. He joined the NTPC on 31-10-1986. No specific order confirming the appellant in the service of the Central Government was issued. The question before the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal), New Delhi was whether the appellant was entitled to pro rata pension for the period of his service under the Central Government. The Tribunal answered the question in the negative and rejected the claim of the appellant on the short ground that the appellant was not a substantive employee of the Central Government. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 24-10-1991.
3. The appellant joined the Central Government service on 2-3-1974 as Technical Assistant in the office of the Director General of Supplies & Disposals and worked there till 12-10-1977. On 13-10-1977 he joined the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) as Assistant Meteorologist after being selected through the Union Public Service Commission. He was placed on probation for a period of two years. He was permitted to cross the first efficiency bar on 1-10-1983. While working with the IMD he was selected for appointment as Senior Engineer in the NTPC. He was required to resign from the Central Government service for the purpose of joining the NTPC. The appellant delayed his joining the NTPC because his case for confirmation as Assistant Meteorologist was under consideration of the Central Government. The NTPC finally directed the appellant to join on or before 31-10-1986. In the meantime, the appellant was promoted as Meteorologist Grade-I in the IMD with effect from 22-9-1986 and posted at Pune. However, in order to pursue his case for confirmation, he decided to forego the promotion. Despite repeated representations the IMD did not confirm the appellant and, as such, he submitted his resignation on 21-10-1986 to the IMD. He was relieved on 30-10-1986 by the IMD and he joined the NTPC on 31-10-1986. On 11-2-1987 the appellant again represented to the Central Government requesting for the grant of pro rata pension as he had served the Government for twelve years and eight months. The Director General, IMD by his letter dated 11-11-1987 informed the appellant that since the seniority list of the cadre of Assistant Meteorologist has been quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, his case"for confirmation will be considered according to rules on the basis of revised seniority list when finalised". Since no decision was taken by the IMD for considerable time, the appellant approached the Tribunal seeking direction that he should be deemed to be a substantive employee of the Central Government within the meaning of Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (the Rules) and, as such, entitled to pension and other retiral benefits under the rules. As mentioned above, the Tribunal rejected the prayer.
4. The question whether the appellant is entitled to pro rata pension in respect of the service for the period of twelve years and eight months rendered by him under the Central Government depends on the point whether he held the appointment in the service of the IMD in a substantive capacity. It is not disputed that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Meteorologist on 13-10-1977 by way of direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission. Direct recruitment, invariably, is made against permanent vacancies. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellant was appointed against a temporary post. The appellant was, therefore, appointed as Assistant Meteorologist against a permanent vacancy. He was on probation for a period of two years. His crossing the efficiency bar in October 1983 and further promotion to the higher post in September 1986 show that he suc
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.