Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1953
High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.
Union of India & Another
Versus
Dr. S.D. Pradhan
W.P.(C). No. 5066 of 2014 & C.M. Nos. 10107-08 of 2014
Decided on : 20-08-2014
For the Petitioners:Saqib, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sanjay Parikh & N. Vidya, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent's case was not one of re-employment, and Rule 7(2) of the Pension Rules did not apply. The court also emphasized that the petitioner was precluded from re-opening the basis on which the respondent's pension had been fixed.
Headnote:
Pension - Revision - Rule 17 of CCS (Pension) Rules - Rule 7(2) of the Pension Rules - Rule 19 of the Pension Rules - Rule 49 of the Pension Rules
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a former employee, sought revision of his pension in accordance with an office memorandum. The petitioner denied the revision, citing Rule 7(2) of the Pension Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's initial appointment with the Ministry of Defence and subsequently with NSCS was not re-employment but a new employment. The court held that Rule 7(2) of the Pension Rules did not apply, and the respondent's case was covered by Rule 17(1) as he fulfilled the conditions laid down under the said Rule. The court also held that the petitioner was precluded from re-opening the basis on which the respondent's pension had been fixed.
Issues: The issues included whether the respondent's case was one of re-employment or absorption, the applicability of Rule 7(2) of the Pension Rules, and whether the petitioners were precluded by estoppel from re-opening the case after the determination of the respondent's pension in 2008.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the respondent's case was not one of re-employment, and Rule 7(2) of the Pension Rules did not apply. The court also found that the petitioner was precluded from re-opening the basis on which the respondent's pension had been fixed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to disburse the differential of pension and other dues as well as the interest directed by the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Vipin Sanghi, J. (Open Court):
1. The Union of India (UOI) has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.2250/2012, preferred by the respondent, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the respondent/ applicant’s claim for revision of his pension in terms of office memorandum dated 10.12.2009, and consequently, the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 08.05.2012 issued by the Government of India, whereby the respondent’s claim for upward revision of pension was rejected. The Tribunal has held that the respondent was entitled to draw pension at 50% of the last pay drawn with effect from 29.02.2008, and consequently, the petitioners have been directed to pay the arrears to the respondent with interest at the rate admissible to the GPF from the due date.
2. In brief, the facts are that the respondent joined Punjabi University, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’) as Lecturer on 12.08.1970 and was subsequently promoted as Reader. On 24.03.1984, the respondent was appointed as Joint Editor in the Ministry of Defence (hereinafter referred to as ‘MoD’) on deputation basis in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 for a period of two years. The said deputation was extended from time to time.
3. On 29.06.1989, the respondent joined as Director/ Deputy Secretary with the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS), which had borrowed the respondent’s services from MoD. On 01.07.1991, the NSCS requested the University for extension of the period of the respondent’s deputation beyond June 1991, which was declined. Consequently, the respondent took premature retirement from the University with effect from the same date. Accordingly, the University reckoned the services of the respondent for the purpose of post retiral benefits from 12.08.1970 to 30.06.1991.
4. It is not in dispute that initially the respondent was covered by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme of the University. However, later on, a pension scheme was made applicable on 01.01.1996 by the University with retrospective effect. It is not in dispute that, consequently, the respondent also got covered by the said pension scheme. He was granted pension at Rs.1,639/- per month, which was subsequently revised to Rs.4,400/- per month.
5. The respondent was absorbed in the organization of NSCS as Joint Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.18,400 - 22,400 with effect from 07.06.2001. On 18.06.2001, his services – which had till then been on contract basis, were regularized with the representation that he would be entitled to the benefit of past service, as admissible under Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (the Pension Rules), which is reproduced a little later in this order. The respondent was assured that he was entitled to retention of pensionary benefits for past service as per paragraph 5(1) of the O.M. dated 29.08.1984, and that his past contract service – prior to his regularization (i.e. with effect from 01.07.1991) would be reckoned for the said purpose. Paragraph 5(1) of the O.M. dated 29.08.1984 is extracted a little later.
6. The respondent was promoted to the rank of Additional Secretary in NSCS, and thereafter, was appointed as Chairman, Joint Intelligence Committee in the rank and pay of Secretary to the Government of India for a period of two years on 27.02.2006, wherefrom he retired on 29.02.2008.
7. The respondent’s pension was fixed and was revised with effect from 01.03.2008 to basic pension of Rs.25,455/-. On 10.12.2009, the Government of India – in modification of its earlier office memorandum, decided that the full pension would be delinked from the qualifying service of 33 years with effect from 01.01.2006, instead of 02.09.2008.
8. The respondent made a representation for revision of his pension in accordance with the O.M. dated 10.12.2009,
