Point of Law : A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this writ petition is laid to the judgment dated 02.09.2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, (for brevity "Tribunal") whereby Original Application ('OA') filed by the respondent-applicant has been allowed and the petitioners were directed to treat the qualifying service rendered by the respondent-applicant from 18.11.2002 to 31.05.2015 for the purpose of pension. It was also directed that the respondent shall be allowed pension and other pension related benefits including commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. The entire exercise was directed to be carried out by the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent-applicant was initially appointed in UPTRON India Ltd. (A UP Govt. Undertaking) and was posted as Executive Officer (Personal & Administration), Lucknow. He performed his duties there from 15.09.1983 to 17.11.2002 and during the said period, Contributory Provident Fund ('CPF') was deducted from his salary. He was relieved to join as Private Secretary in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'ITAT'), Jaipur on deputation basis vide order dated 15.11.2002. He joined ITAT, Jaipur w.e.f. 18.11.2002 for three years on deputation. As per his last pay certificate of UPTRON dated 16.11.2002, his pay was protected and he was allowed the same pay scale in ITAT, which he was drawing at UPTRON. He was permanently absorbed w.e.f. 18.11.2005 in ITAT vide order dated 26.10.2005 and was allowed revised pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/-, which was the corresponding pay scale that he was drawing earlier. He was also promoted to the post of Senior Private Secretary from Private Secretary vide order dated 07.09.2006. The UPTRON did not pay benefits like CPF, earned leave and gratuity to respondent. He submitted representations to the ITAT to either pay or transfer his leave, salary, contribution & CPF contribution (employer share) but no efforts for the same were done by ITAT to contact UPTRON for transfer of his dues. He was also not paid any deputation allowances by the ITAT. He attained the age of superannuation from ITAT on 31.05.2015. During his service, UPTRON India Ltd. had informed ITAT that all employees of UPTRON have been allowed benefits of 5th Pay Commission who were on deputation in other bodies of State Government. Before attaining age of superannuation, the respondent had submitted a detailed representation to the petitioner Department regarding his length of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pay fixation. It is the case of the respondent that when an employee is sent on deputation in a department and subsequently his services are absorbed on permanent basis then he is entitled for the benefit of those services.

3. The services of ITAT are governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and as per Rule 13, qualifying service of a government servant shall commence from the date he takes the charge of the post to which he was first appointed either substantially or in an officiating or temporary capacity. Thus, the services rendered by the applicant before his permanent absorption from 2002 to 2005 shall be counted as qualifying services for the pension purpose. Since on the representation filed by the petitioners, no action has been taken, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of filing OA No.545/2016 and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.07.2016 directing the petitioners to decide such representation(s). Thereafter, the petitioners vide order dated 24.10.2016 rejected the representations of the applicant relying upon OMs dated 13.09.1996 and 04.07.2016.

4. Being aggrieved of the order dated 24.10.2016, the respondent-applicant again approached the Tribunal for redressal of his grievances by way of filing OA No.800/2016 (R.N. Mishra vs The UOI & Ors.). Reply to the OA was filed by the petitioner No.3 ITAT wherein it was averred