The right to receive post retirement benefits is inherent and comes with service, and no law of limitation applies to the payment of pension.

1. This is a very small matter which seems to have been exaggerated beyond comprehension. Firstly, a matter needs to be corrected for the record. Earlier Union of India had filed a petition that the Central Administraive Tribunal had committed an error that qualifying period for receiving pension (explained as; death-cum-retirement gratuity) is not 10 years but 20 years; an aspect not noticed in the order. The review was declined. This is an order of the tribunal dated 30 January, 2003. Today, when the court asked for the regulation which makes qualifying service as 20 years so as to attract post retirement benefits, learned counsel for the Union of India contended that all that was a misunder-standing on record and rules and regulations as lie, in fact, have not seen change and the review application itself was a misunderstanding. Let this chapter be recorded as such.

2. It is now contended that on merits the tribunal was wrong in having ordered the payment of post retirement benefits for the reason that the incumbent (Braj Nandan Singh) while tendering his resignation was not joining public service. In the circumstances, this disentitled him for reliefs in the nature of post retirement benefits. The second contention is that the prayer for post retirement benefits was sought after inordinate delay, that is, after about 20 years.

3. The issue is not one whether the prayer to seek post retirement benefits has been made after much delay. To receive post retirement benefits is a right of service which is inherent comes with service. No law of limitation applies to be given pension which is not a bounty. It is an attribute of service. In the circumstances that an employee may have not chased his pension is one aspect of the matter but the State cannot get away from the proposition that pension is due and has to be paid.

4. In so far as the other aspect is concerned that pension is payable and it is qualified with a condition that should there be a resignation it must follow with joining the public service. This aspect does not appeal to the court either. If a person has qualified the minimum period to receive pension he is entitled to receive whatever pension is payable for the period during which he was in service. This matter should not be mixed up as continuous service which may be added, should a person be joining another service.

5. In so far as the incumbent is concerned, he was bonafide in his declaration when he tendered his resignation before standing for a public office. This is a matter to be appreciated. Rules must be torn out of context to deny post retirement benefits.

6. The court is not impressed with the petition filed by the Union of India.

7. Dismissed.