IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an individual's status as an Ex-Serviceman under the relevant rules determines their eligibility for counting past military service towards pay and pension fixation in civil employment.

JUDGMENT

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri.T. Ashok Srivastava Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri. N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the Petitioners and Sri. Mahanthi Regulagadda, learned Counsel representing Sri. A. Tata Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India and its authorities, challenging the Order, dtd. 29/7/2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, ('CAT) in Original Application No. 146 of 2004 ('O.A.') filed by the Respondent No. 1, which was allowed to the extent indicated in the judgment of which reference would be made shortly.

3. The 1st Respondent herein is the Applicant and the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the Respondent Nos. 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively in O.A. The present 2nd Respondent is the CAT. The parties shall be referred as in the O.A.

4. The Applicant (1st Respondent herein) was initially recruited as Store Keeper Technical Class-III Rank Sapper in Madras Engineer Group and Center, Bangalore, on 7/7/1969 and was discharged from the military service on 1/4/1979 on compassionate ground. The Military pension was not granted to him as he did not fulfill the criterion of qualifying service. However, pension equivalent to service gratuity was granted while discharging him from the military service. At the time of his discharge, he was drawing pay of Rs.252.50 per month.

5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Prakasham Division, Ongole, 1st Respondent sent requisition to the District Employment Exchange, ['DEE'] Ongole, for sponsoring the candidates for the post of Short Duty Postal Assistants [in short 'SDPA'], Prakasam Postal Division, to utilize their services as and when required, till regularly absorbed. The Notification was issued for Open Category ['OC'] only. The Applicant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, along with other candidates. After the selection process, he was selected as SDPA. His services were utilized as SDPA during the years 1981 and 1982. He was appointed as Time Scale Postal Assistant in the scale of Rs.260.008-300-EB-8-340-10-360-12-420-EB480 with effect from 19/4/1983 on regular basis. His pay was worked out and fixed at Rs.277.68 (initial pay in time scale 260.00 + pension equivalent service gratuity @ 17.68 per month given for his military service by the military authority). He retired from service on superannuation on 31/5/2004. He made representation, dtd. 20/12/1984, to count his past military service and for re-fixation of pay on entry into civil service and for the purpose of pension as per Rule 19 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ['Pension Rules 1972']. His request was not acceded by the authorities.

6. The Applicant filed O.A. No.146 of 2004 seeking direction to count his military service period of nine years 143 days towards qualifying service for civil pension and to count his SDPA service as full time Postal Assistant service for payment of arrears as well as pensionary benefits.

7. The CAT allowed the O.A. to a limited extent by Judgment and Order, dtd. 29/7/2009.

8. The CAT rejected the claim of the Applicant that, his services as Short Duty Clerk should be taken as full time Postal Assistant for payment of arrears as well as pensionary benefits, being barred by laches and limitations. The Applicant's qualifying service had been reckoned from the date of his regular appointment i.e., 19/4/1983 as Postal Assistant.

9. The CAT allowed the Applicant's claim for counting his armed service for fixation of his pay in the Civil Post and for pensionary benefits, as indicated in paragraph 39 of its judgment, on merits, after rejecting the objection of the respondents that such claim was barred by limitation.

10. The CAT held as under in para 39 of its judgment:

"39. The applicant was clearly an Ex-serviceman and the respondents have not been able to give any sound reason for denying his claim.