Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2420
High Court of Delhi
SURESH KAIT, J.
UOI & Another
Versus
Bahgwan Shahai & Others
W.P.(C). Nos. 2314, 2315, 2830, 7002, 7003, 7738 of 2011 & 3229 of 2012 & CM. Nos. 4947, 4948, 6013 & 17532 of 2011 & 15009 of 2013
Decided On: 11-11-2014
For the Petitioners:Jayendra, Saqib, Anuj Aggarwal & Gaurav Khanna, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Aditi Gupta, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of The Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, Rule 14, and the consideration of an Office Memorandum issued in 1968 in determining the eligibility of workmen for pension.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Central Government Department - The Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, Rule 14 - The court condoned the delay in filing the applications and allowed the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The Central Government Department sought condonation of delay in filing applications and challenged an order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.I in I.D. No.15/2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court condoned the delay in filing the applications and allowed the petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the period of services rendered by the workmen, which was paid from contingency, can be counted towards pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered The Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, Rule 14, which prescribes that period of service paid from contingencies do not count as qualifying service for pension. However, the court also considered an Office Memorandum issued in 1968, which allowed half of the service paid from contingencies to count towards pension under certain conditions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.
Suresh Kait, J.
CM No. 4948 & 4950 of 2011 (for delay) in W.P.(C) Nos. 2314 & 2315 of 2011
1. Vide the instant applications; the applicants/petitioners are seeking condonation of delay of 546 days in filing the same.
2. Notice was issued in these applications vide order dated06.04.2011, however, till date no reply has been filed by the respondents.
3. It is stated in the instant applications that after the award dated 30.10.2009, the Director General of Works CPWD, requested the respective field units to obtain the legal opinion of the Government Counsel and furnish the same to them. The legal opinion received from separate Government Counsels revealed divergent views on the feasibility of challenging the award. In a similar case of Subhash Ranjeet Chauhan and Ram Chandra Malviya for counting the service of the MR period for the purpose of the pensionary benefit etc. was with CA Section (Ministry of Law) in which the learned ASG had advised filing of SLP against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Accordingly, on 24.05.2010, it was decided to wait for the return of the file and prepare the grounds of appeal in the meantime.
4. The said files were received on 09.06.2010 and 10.06.2010, wherein it was advised that the case is fit for challenging the order in the Apex Court. For the said purpose, a draft SLP was prepared and it was decided that on the same ground, the impugned order may be challenged. Thereafter, the file was transferred to the Ministry of Urban Development for onward transmission to the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice to obtain their view.
5. Finally, on 21.12.2010 the matter was handed over to the counsel for filing the writ petition, who requested the CPWD to provide the files in this regard, accordingly, the record was provided to him on 24.12.2010.
6. Mr. Jayendra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/petitioners submitted that delay has been caused due to the reasons mentioned above and the same was neither intentional nor wilful. He prayed that keeping in view the issue involved in these petitions, the delay may be condoned.
7. As noted above, reply has not been filed by the respondents to the applications seeking condonation of delay. Thus, it can be safely presumed that the respondents have nothing to say on these applications.
8. Keeping in view the averments made in the instant applications and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants; and considering the issue involved in these writ petitions, the delay in filing these applications is condoned.
9. Consequently, these applications are allowed.
W.P.(C) Nos. 2314, 2315, 2830, 7002, 7003, 7738 of 2011 and 3229 of 2012
1. Vide these petitions, the petitioner C.P.W.D., a Central Government Department, has assailed order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.I in I.D. No.15/2007.
2. In W.P.(C) No. 2314/2011, there are thirty respondents/workmen, the details of whom are as under:
Sl.No. Name of workman Date of joining of service Date of regularization
1. Bhagwan Sahai 07.09.1979 04.03.1980
2. Satish Kumar 22.12.1980 20.06.1988
3. Tripal 01.12.1981 15.04.1991
4. Raj Pal 21.04.1981 05.07.1991
5. Babu Lal 09.11.1982 24.12.1992
6. Shiv Kumar 16.06.1983 16.02.1993
7. Gangesh Chand Tiwari 02.05.1982 12.02.1993
8. Bihari Lal 22.08.1982 16.01.1993
9. Mohan 03.12.1979 05.02.1993
10. Bishamber 22.07.1983 16.02.1993
11. Kalicharan 21.09.1983 16.02.1993
12. Suresh Chand 25.01.1986 01.06.1996
13. Ram Pal 21.10.1984 10.06.1993
14. Birpal 12.10.1981 01.05.1991
15. Tejpal 01.01.1981 04.07.1989
16. Manohar Lal 21.09.1983 02.04.1993
17. Batan Singh 03.12.1979 17.06.1987
18. Nanak Chand 01.10.1979 05.03.1986
19. Shanti 08.04.1976 05.01.1985
20. Om Prakash 13.01.1983 10.12.1992
21. Hari Singh 01.06.1981 18.06.1991
22. Kanwar Pal Singh 22.03.1979 19.04.1991
23. Jai Kishan 29.05.1984 21.04.1991
24. Bhogi Ram 25.10.1979 18.03.1986
25. Dayal Singh 19.09.1979 01.03.1986
26. Jagp
