Anil Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has challenged the order dated 3rd September, 2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi in T.A No. 570/2009 titled as `R.K.S. Gaur v. MCD & Ors' directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to count the erstwhile service rendered by respondent No. 1 with the Government of Sikkim without insisting on liability, which has been dispensed with as per O.M dated 9th October, 1986.

2. The relevant facts pertinent to comprehend the controversies are that respondent No. 1 who is a post graduate teacher (Biology) had worked under the Government of Sikkim, Education Department, respondent No. 2 from 2nd September, 1976 to 9th May, 1992.

3. The respondent No. 1 pursuant to his application for the post of Assistant Education Officer with the petitioner with prior permission of respondent No. 2 was appointed to the post of Assistant Education Officer through UPSC against the regular vacant post of Assistant Education Officer as on 21st April, 1992. The respondent No. 2 had tendered technical resignation to respondent No. 2 and he was relieved of his services, whereafter he joined the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as Assistant Education Officer from 11th May, 1992 at Headquarter, Education Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

4. The respondent No. 1 had been issued a service certificate dated 1st August, 1992 by the respondent No. 2. Prior to that on 5th May, 1992 service certificate/book was transferred by respondent No. 2. The petitioner had also fixed the basic pay of respondent No. 1 at Rs. 3300/- per month. While granting the basic pay of Rs. 3300/- per month to the respondent No. 1 three advance increments were given on account of his past services.

5. The respondent No. 1 contended that he made various representations from 15th March, 1993 till 2005 for counting his past services of 17 years for retirement benefits. On 12th July, 1995 the respondent No. 2 had even transferred the GPF balance amounting to Rs. 36,061/- to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, also sought transfer of pensionary contribution and other benefits with respect to respondent No. 1 for counting his past service of 17 years in calculating his terminal benefits.

6. The respondent No. 2 by its letter dated 23rd February, 2002 contended that on account of reciprocal arrangement between the petitioner and Government of Sikkim, and as per standing instructions vide O.M dated 9th October, 1986 issued by the Union of India, the pro-rata pension contribution of the parental department has been dispensed with. The petitioner, however, refused to consider O.M dated 9th October, 1986 and refused to count the services of the respondent No. 1 with effect from 2nd September, 1976 to 9th May, 1992 rendered with the Government of Sikkim, respondent No. 2 and also directed respondent No. 2 that until the amount against pro-rata pension contribution is deposited by respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 1 himself his case would not be considered. A calculation slip was sent by petitioner to respondent No. 1 that on depositing the net amount of Rs. 1,38,320.16/- by respondent No. 2, the case of the respondent No. 1 would be considered.

7. Against the action of the petitioner not to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 to count his service with the Government of Sikkim with effect from 2nd September, 1976 to 9th May, 1992 unless a net sum of Rs. 1,38,320.16/- is deposited by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 made various representations and also served a legal notice dated 4th October, 2005 on the petitioner. The respondent No. 1, thereafter, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi praying inter alia to issue directions to the petitioner to count the entire length of about 17 years of his service from 2nd September, 1976 to 9th May, 1992 rendered with respondent No. 2 so as to consider the claim of the respondent No. 1 while calculating his terminal/retiral benefits.

8. T