Pension eligibility for Central Government employees is determined by the completion of at least ten years of qualifying service, as per Pension Rules and Article 368 of CSR (Rule 14).

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi [hereinafter to be referred as “Tribunal] in O.A. No. 48 of 2013 (R); whereby the application preferred by the applicant-petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondents to release his Pension, Gratuity and Commutation value of Pension has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The applicant was serving as Dresser-cum-Attendant and retired from his service on 30.04.2006. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Daily Rated Worker. When the petitioner along with other daily rated employees were retrenched, they filed O.A. No. 560 of 1995 before the Tribunal and in pursuant to the order of the Tribunal vide order dated 16.10.1996, the petitioner was reinstated temporarily.

In pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 991 of 1996, the petitioner vide order dated 16.12.1996 was granted temporary status in the minimum pay scale of Rs. 750-12-870-EB-13-940 w.e.f 17.12.1996. Thereafter, petitioner along with others moved before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 572 of 1997 for regularization of their services and the Tribunal vide order dated 25.01.1999 directed the respondents to consider the matter of their regularization and in pursuance of the said order passed by the Tribunal, the respondents vide order dated 01.09.1999 regularized the services of the petitioner in Group-D post w.e.f. 15.07.1999. Further, vide order dated 29.12.2005, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Dresser-cum-Attendant w.e.f. 15.07.2001.

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he retired on 30.04.2006, his pension is yet to be fixed and the respondents are not paying him gratuity and commuted value of pension in spite of several representation.

4. Mr. Md. Anisurzamma Khan learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in not providing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner and they are not correct in saying that petitioner has not completed 10 years of service for pensionary benefits. He further contended that the respondents are bound to count the earlier service rendered by the petitioner as Casual labour. The learned Tribunal erred in law by accepting the contention of the respondents by not counting the whole service rendered by the petitioner under the respondents. The Tribunal should have seen the fact that there is no denial of service rendered by the petitioner with the respondents. He lastly submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to immediately and forthwith issue an order for fixing his pension and release the same along with other retiral benefits.

5. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had worked as a Daily Rated Worker from 01.05.1982 to 31.08.1995 with break in service and was granted temporary status from 17.12.1996 and finally he was regularized w.e.f. 15.07.1999 and as per Pension Rules, since he has only rendered regular service for a period of 6 years 9 months (30.04.2006 minus 15.07.1999) as per Pension Rules, he is not entitled to pension as he has not rendered the minimum eligibility service of ten years required for pension in the Central Government. He further submits that a Central Government Employee after retirement is entitled to receive pension on completion of at least ten years of qualifying service and 50% of service rendered under Temporary Status, would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularization. He further referred Article 368 of CSR (Rule 14) and contended that period of service paid from contingencies, did not count as qualifying service for pension. According to the respondents, since the petitioner has