IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that administrative errors should not deprive an employee of pension benefits, emphasizing the importance of proper management of service records.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

Preface:

1. A legal wrangle over the issue of the disbursement of pension upon condonation of deficiency of qualifying service has reached the writ jurisdiction of this Court through this writ petition, which has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners). This writ petition seeks to question the tenability of the order dated June 21, 2022 passed by the learned Tribunal in an original application (in short, OA), being OA 1230 of 2022. In that order, the learned Tribunal nixed the order dated 01.12.2021 issued by the Director (Estt.), Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, which denied the claim for pension advanced by the original applicant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). The learned Tribunal directed the petitioners to release pension and other admissible retirement benefits to the respondent within a specific time frame.

Facts:

2. Before addressing the issue, it is necessary to outline the relevant facts, as reflected in the writ petition and the order currently under scrutiny in this writ petition, for clarity and convenience. The respondent joined the Calcutta Telecommunication in a temporary position as an Engineering Supervisor in 1967. As he met the requisite conditions stipulated in CCS (CCA) Rules and various other relevant instructions, he was granted quasi-permanent status in the grade of Jr. Engineer effective from 18.12.1971, by an order dated 20.08.1975.

3. By an office order dated 20.08.1975, the respondent was relieved from the Calcutta Telecommunication Department (in short, CTD) to join as Assistant Engineer in the Overseas Communication Service (in short, OCS), in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in O.M. dated 6.8.1975. The respondent joined OCS on 25.08.1975 and was permitted to retain his lien for two years. Subsequently, the petitioner joined ITI Limited as an Apprentice Assistant Executive Engineer on 28.02.1977. However, the date of his release was recorded as 14.02.1977, without any indication as to how the intervening period from 14th February, 1997 to 28.02.1977 was accounted for. He resigned from P & T Department on 6.1.1978. Later, he was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in ITI Limited on regular basis w.e.f. 30.03.1978.

4. The respondent resigned from the OCS on August 14, 1979, and from ITI Limited on October 31, 1984. The respondent’s grievance is that his lien was not retained, nor was his leave salary and pension contributions paid to the CTD by the OCS. Additionally, the CTD did not extend his lien. The respondent submitted multiple representations. In response to the respondent’s representation dated December 28, 1999, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), by its order dated August 3, 2000, noted that the respondent’s lien was actually retained by the OCS and not by the CTD. The DoT stated that since the respondent resigned from Government service voluntarily for better prospects elsewhere, it was not feasible to reinstate him in Government service or grant any service-related benefits.

5. Ultimately, the respondent’s claim for pension and other service-related benefits were denied on the ground that as his lien was not extended by the CTD, which granted him Quasi-permanent status, his lien was treated to have been terminated w.e.f. 19.8.1977. Additionally, the OCS had not transferred his leave salary and pension contribution to CTD. Therefore, the respondent’s qualifying service for pension falls short of 10(ten) years by three months.

Consequently, he was not entitled to pension, even on pro-rata basis, according to the extant rules.

6. After being denied his pension and other service-related benefits by the respondents, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal with an original application, OA 1351 of 2013, which was disposed of by an order dated 20.11.2015, directing the petitioner no. 6 to dec