The main legal point established in the judgment is that all Government servants with 10 years or more of qualifying service before moving to PSUs are entitled to prorata pension, and the right to receive pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2nd April, 2002 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O. A. No. 2491/2000 whereby the original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the office of respondent no. 2 i. e. Accountant General (A and E) Punjab, Chandigarh (formerly a. G. Punjab, Shimla) as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 24. 2. 1953. On passing the sas examination, he was promoted as superintendant with effect from 08. 12. 1958. He was granted quasi-permanent status with effect from 1. 7. 1956. He applied for the post of Accounts and Finance Officer in ONGC through proper channel. On being selected for the said post, the petitioner states that he was forced to resign, since he would otherwise not be permitted to join ONGC. He accordingly tendered his resignation in pursuance of the letter dated 13. 5. 1964. He was relieved by Respondent No. 2 on 24. 2. 1965. Thereafter, he joined the ONGC on 25. 2. 1965. On 17. 4. 1965 and 25. 6. 1965, the Petitioner sought to withdraw his resignation tendered to Respondent No. 2 earlier, and the withdrawal of resignation was accepted by the respondent No. 2 on 28. 8. 1965 and vide order dated 23. 9. 65, the intervening break in service was treated as "dies-non'`. It was not to constitute a break in service. Petitioner continued to work in the office of respondent No. 2 till 7. 1. 1966 when he resigned once again to join ongc. He finally retired from ONGC on 30. 4. 1990. The Petitioner claims that he remained in service of Respondent No. 2 from 24. 2. 1953 to 7. 1. 1966 minus the period of dies-non from 25. 2. 65 to 17. 9. 65.

( 3 ) PETITIONER requested the respondent for grant of prorata pensionary benefits on 15. 10. 1996 as he had rendered more than 10 years of qualifying service with the respondents as aforesaid. However his claim was rejected vide respondent's letter dated 30. 6. 1997. He made another representation which was also rejected on 8. 6. 1999.

( 4 ) IN this background, petitioner preferred the aforesaid O. A. No. 2491/02 before the Tribunal praying for grant of prorata pensionary benefits.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Union Of India vs V. R. Chadha reported as (1997) 11 SCC 242 wherein it was held that since the petitioner was not absorbed in the PSU in public interest, the benefit of T. S. Thiruvegadam vs. Secretary to Government of India and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 174 could not be made available to him. Relying upon the said decision the ld. Single Member dismissed the O. A. preferred by the petitioner vide its impugned order dated 2nd April, 2002.

( 6 ) WE heard the parties at length and on 5th October 2006 directed them to file their written synopsis. Both the parties have filed their written submissions.

( 7 ) PETITIONER's case is that at the time when he had joined service their was no provision for allowing prorata pensionary benefit. The only benefit then available, vide O. M. No. F. 2 (33) EVA/60 dated 10. 11. 1960 was to receive "an amount equal to what Government would have contributed had the officer been on contributory Provident Fund term under Government, together with simple interest thereon at two per cent for the period of his pensionable service under government'`. This was subject to the conditions that the Government Servant was deputed or transferred to the autonomous body and such permanent transfer/absorption was in public interest. Petitioner claims that he did not get this benefit. Subsequently, vide OM dated 16. 6. 67, permanent Central Govt. Employees on deputation/transfer to PSUs upon their permanent absorption in a psu in public interest, were made eligible for prorata pensionary benefits. However, this benefit was restricted only to those who were absorbed on or after june 16, 1967. There were two more O