(A.P. Bhangale, J.)

1. These petitions were filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15/10/1999 passed by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “the CAT”) in Original application nos. 459 of 1997 and 460 of 1997, wherein it is held that a government servant completing the age of Superannuation on 31/03/1995 and relinquishing charge of his Office in the afternoon of that day is deemed to have effectively retired from service with effect from 01/04/1995. Thus, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to give benefit of O. M. no 7/1/95-P & PW(F), dated 14/07/1995 of the Government of India , Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

The respondents/Government Servants from the Postal Department retired on superannuation with effect from 31/03/1995 afternoon. They applied for getting gratuity benefits on retirement arising from the aforesaid O.M. Their claim was rejected on the ground that they were retired on superannuation on 31/03/1995 and not on or after 01/04/1995. The respondent had, therefore, approached the CAT against the petitioners herein seeking a direction to give them the benefit of the aforesaid O.M. The respondents contended that they were deemed to be in service till the midnight of 31/03/1995 and were deemed to have retired with effect from 01/04/1995. The CAT had allowed the Claim as above, after rejecting the contention of the petitioners that the last working day of the respondents was 31/03/1995 and the benefit of amendment made on and with effect from 01/04/1995 cannot be made available to them as they got retired on 31/03/1995.

3. Heard the submissions at the Bar.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners Shri R.S.Sundaram placed reliance upon the decision in Writ petition No. 18186 of 2003, Union of India vs. Shri Y.N.R. Rao, decided on 8th December 2003 by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, wherein the Full Bench decision of Mumbai Bench of CAT was also considered and the view taken therein that the Government Servant retiring in the afternoon of 31st March is to be treated as retiring with effect from 1st April i. e. in the forenoon of first of April is held as not a good law. The Karnataka High Court, after considering the Pension Rules, held that the date of retirement is the last date of the month in which the Government Servant retires and the retirement gratuity is to be calculated as per Rules in force as on that date. Shri Sundaram submitted that this ruling which considered the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the CAT was not challenged in the Supreme Court and it has, therefore, attained finality.

5. Learned Advocate for the respondents Shri Agasti placed reliance upon the ruling in the case of PrabhuDayal Sesma vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1986 SC 1948, wherein it was held that, in the absence of any express provision, while calculating a person’s age, the day of his birth must be counted as a whole day and he attains the specified age on the day preceding the anniversary of his birthday. One of the well accepted rules for computation of time is that fractions of a day will be omitted in computing a period of time in years or months in the sense that a fraction of a day will be treated as a full day. A legal day commences at 12 O’clock midnight and continues until the same hour the following night. This principle is in conformity with Section 4 of the Indian Majority Act.

6. Another ruling in the case of Union of India vs. George reported in 2004 (1) Administrative Total Judgments 150 (Kerala High Court) is also pressed into service before us, wherein, in a case of an employee retiring on 31/12/1995, it was held that he was in the service till the midnight of 31/12/1