HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

W.P(C) 7370 OF 1999

Judgment reserved on: October 8, 2007

Judgment delivered on: December 03 , 2007

#

Shri S.R. Dutta

..... Petitioner

!

Through:

Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee,

Advocate.

versus

$

The Secretary Ministry of Agriculture & Ors ..... Respondents

^

Through:

Mr. U.L.Watwani, Advocate

*CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No

be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

No

in the Digest?

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

is directed against the order dated 28.6.1999 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in

O.A. No. 1992/97 whereby the original application filed by the

petitioner has been dismissed.

WP(C) 7370/99

Page 1 of 7

2007:DHC:1558

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the

office of Respondent No. 3 i.e. Ministry of Industry on temporary basis

as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 24.3.1956. In 1964 he was

transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. He applied for the post of

Inspector in the Central Fisheries Corporation Ltd.(CFCL for short), a

Central Public Sector Undertaking(PSU for short) under the Ministry of

Agriculture, through proper channel. Permission was granted and

pursuant to his selection order, he tendered his technical resignation

and joined the CFCL.

3.

Petitioner requested the respondent for grant of pro-rata

pensionary benefits on the basis of the service rendered by him with

the Respondents. However his claim was rejected vide respondent's

letter dated 27.2.1997. In this background, petitioner preferred the

aforesaid O.A. No. 1992/97 before the Tribunal praying for grant of

pro-rata pensionary benefits.

4.

The petitioner had relied upon DOPT OM No.28016/5/85-

Estt.(C) dated 31.1.86 whereby the requirement of holding a

permanent post had been done away with. The Tribunal concluded

that the aforesaid OM could not come to the aid of the Petitioner since

the same had been specifically made effective from 6.3.1985. The

Tribunal also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Union Of

India v. V.R. Chadha reported as (1997) 11 SCC 242, wherein it was

held that the petitioner not having been absorbed in the PSU in public

WP(C) 7370/99

Page 2 of 7

2007:DHC:1558

interest, the benefit of T.S. Thiruvegadam v. Secretary to

Government of India and Ors.,(1993) 2 SCC 174 could not be

made available to him. Relying upon the said decision the ld. Single

Member dismissed the O.A. preferred by the petitioner vide its

impugned order dated 28.6.1999.

5.

It may be noted that at the time when the Petitioner had

joined service there was no provision for allowing pro-rata pensionary

benefit. Subsequently, vide OM dated 16.6.67, permanent Central

Govt. Employees on deputation/transfer to PSUs upon their

permanent absorption in a PSU in public interest, were made eligible

for receiving pro-rata pensionary benefits. However, this benefit was

restricted only to those who were absorbed on or after June 16, 1967.

There were two more OMs dated 8.11.68 and 21.4.72 on the subject

leading to D.O.P.T. O.M. No. 28016/4/76-Estt(C) dated 25.3.1977

whereby Govt. Servants who were deputed/transferred and then

absorbed, or had joined of their own volition in a PSU, on or after

8.11.1968 were made eligible for pro-rata retirement benefits.

However the actual financial benefits were allowed only from

1.8.1976.

Therefore,

the

distinction

between

deputationists/transferees who were absorbed in a PSU in public

interest and those who joined the PSU of their own volition post

8.11.1968 was obliterated.