Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH
P.V. Sanjay Kumar, M. Ganga Rao, JJ.
T.K. Chakravarty – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 22289 of 2012
Decided On : 12-11-2018
For the Appellant : Goda Siva
For the Respondent: M. Brahma Reddy, P.B. Vijay Kumar and Meherchand Nori
Headnote:
Service and Labour Laws - Retirement benefits - Migration of employees from one autonomous body under Central Government to another - Reckoning of retirement benefits taken into account past service - Scope - Held, Migration of employees from one autonomous body under Central Government to another, rules cannot be subjected to rigid interpretation in such a technical manner resulting in injustice to employee -Government of India itself chose to permit EPF contributions to be credited to newly opened GPF accounts in case of canteen employees - Therefore, petitioner had already retired after rendering loyal service to MANAGE under belief that his past service would be taken into account for reckoning his retirement benefits, ought to have been dealt with on same lines as case of canteen employees - Conduct of MANAGE by delay on part of Government of India in addressing issue, Court is of opinion that petitioner must, in interest of justice, be extended benefit of his past service for reckoning retirement benefits due to him, including pension that he would have more than requisite service for availing benefit of Rules of 1972 - Petition allowed (Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Section 17A - General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 - Rule 35A - Central civil Services (Pension) Rules of 1972 - Rules 13 and 14) ( Paras 26 to 28)
Facts of the Case:
Question, that arises for consideration in this appeal, is that Migration of employees from one autonomous body under Central Government to another by Reckoning of retirement benefits of Past service and its scope
Findings of the case:
Migration of employees from one autonomous body under Central Government to another, rules cannot be subjected to rigid interpretation in such a technical manner resulting in injustice to employee -Government of India itself chose to permit EPF contributions to be credited to newly opened GPF accounts in case of canteen employees - Therefore, petitioner had already retired after rendering loyal service to MANAGE under belief that his past service would be taken into account for reckoning his retirement benefits, ought to have been dealt with on same lines as case of canteen employees - Conduct of MANAGE by delay on part of Government of India in addressing issue, Court is of opinion that petitioner must, in interest of justice, be extended benefit of his past service for reckoning retirement benefits due to him, including pension that he would have more than requisite service for availing benefit of Rules of 1972
Result : Petition allowed
ORDER :
P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner initially filed W.P. No. 13072 of 2002 before this Court assailing the action of the Union of India in rejecting his representation under letter dated 13.06.2001 and refusing to grant him pension. He also challenged the action of the National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Hyderabad (MANAGE), an autonomous organization under the Government of India, being a society registered under the Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, in not releasing terminal benefits to him taking into account the service rendered by him in National Institute of Small Industry Extension Training, Hyderabad (NISIET). He sought a consequential direction to the authorities to compute and release his dues with interest. Thereafter, as MANAGE was brought within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, vide Government of India Notification dated 25.07.2007, the writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (CAT), and renumbered as T.A. No. 13/2011 in W.P. No. 13072 of 2002. However, upon adjudication, the Tribunal dismissed the case by order dated 19.03.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
2. Heard Sri Siva, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for MANAGE and Sri Meherchand Nori, learned counsel for NISIET. The matter is therefore amenable to final disposal at this stage.
3. Though Sri M. Brahma Reddy, learned counsel, took notice for the Union of India, he was absent on 26.11.2014 and even thereafter. Even today, there is no representation for the Union of India.
4. After securing his Ph.D. from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, the petitioner joined the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) in 1971 as a Systems Analyst and worked for about a year. He joined the service of the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) as Deputy Director (Agricultural Extension) in September, 1972. This Institute is an autonomous organization controlled by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. He was thereafter promoted as a Joint Director. He however resigned from the service of NIRD in September, 1981 and joined NISIET, Hyderabad. NISIET is also an autonomous organization functioning under the Ministry of Industry, Government of India. He joined its service as a Faculty Member. In February, 1982, he was selected and appointed as Director (Applied Behavioral Sciences). While so, in 1993, MANAGE invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to two posts of Directors in its service, preferably on deputation. The petitioner applied through NISIET and with its concurrence, he was appointed on deputation basis as a Director in MANAGE for a period of two years with effect from 07.09.1995. Prior to expiry of his deputation, MANAGE sought willingness of the petitioner to be absorbed permanently in its service. The petitioner thereupon informed MANAGE, vide letter dated 06.05.1997, that he was willing to be permanently absorbed in its service provided his past service was counted for retirement benefits, including pension. While so, NISIET addressed letter dated 02.06.1997 to MANAGE requesting that the petitioner be relieved on 06.09.1997 upon expiry of his deputation so as to enable him to join his parent organization. MANAGE addressed reply dated 06.06.1997 informing NISIET that a decision had been taken in principle to absorb the petitioner in its service with effect from 07.09.1997 upon expiry of the term of deputation as he had given his willingness for such absorption subject to the condition that pension and other service benefits would be protected by counting the past service rendered at NISIET. MANAGE therefore called upon NISIET to forward the terms and conditions of NISIET for permanent absorption of the petitioner at MANAGE and its willingness to transfer all the benefits such as EPF amount (individual and institu
