UNION OF INDIA Vs. D R R SASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras dated 23-9-1994 in OA No. 711 of 1993. By the impugned order the Tribunal has directed the appellant to allow the respondent the benefit of option for the pension scheme, on the respondent refunding the amount he has received on his retirement

(3.) MR . Mahajan appearing for the appellant contended that the respondent having not exercised his option to opt for the pension scheme within the time specified in the Board's letter dated 23-7-1974 the Tribunal erred in law granting him the relief in question. The learned counsel, however, was not in a position to indicate any special reason why similar opportunity had been given to another railway employee which has been noticed by the Tribunal while granting the relief to the respondent. Mr. Mahajan, however, contended that in view of the Constitution Bench's decision of this Court in Krishena Kumar case [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, 1990 (4) SCC 207 : 1991 SCC(L&S) 112 : 1990 (14) ATC 846] the impugned direction of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. When this case was listed before this Court on 6-5-1995, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Government itself has granted a similar benefit to one K. V. Kasthuri by an order dated 19-9-1994, even though he had retired in the year 1973. The Court, thereof, called upon the Union Government to place the necessary material which enabled the Government to grant the relief to Shri Kasthuri and how his case stands on a different footing than the case of the respondent. But no further affidavit was filed by the Union of India not was any material placed to indicate any distinguishing feature for granting the relief to Shri K. V. Kasthuri and refusing the same to the respondent. Be that as it may when the matter was again argued on 20-8-1996, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent having resigned from the Railways and having been absorbed by the Heavy Engineering Corporation would be entitled to the benefits available to him under the Heavy Engineering Corporation and the counsel for the appellant also contended that the Heavy Engineering Corporation has already determined the pension of the respondent by taking into account the entire period of service from 1952. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant the Court had called upon the railway administration to indicate whether the period of service rendered by the respondent from 1950 till 22-7-1972 under the Railways was taken into account by the Heavy Engineering Corporation in fixing his pension on his retirement from this service of Heavy Engineering Corporation and whether the proportionality of the period of service from 1950 to 31-7-1972 and from 1-8-1972 till the retirement are separated to compute the pension and if so computed whether the respondent would stand to gain any higher pension than is being actually drawn. But unfortunately no further affidavit or material was placed by the appellant. On the other hand the respondent has filed an affidavit stating therein that he has not received any pension on his retirement from the Heavy Engineering Corporation as the Corporation itself had no pensionable scheme. In the aforesaid premises and in the absence of any explanation from the appellant to indicate any special feature for granting similar relief as late as in the year 1994 to Shri K. V. Kasthuri, we see no justification for our interference with the impugned direction of the Tribunal. The respondent had served for about 22 years and he should not be deprived of the pensionary benefit when the Government itself had come forward with the Liberalised Pension Scheme and gave option to the persons already retired to come over to the pension scheme. But his pension is to be calculated as on 31-7-1972 in accordance with the Railway Board's letter dated 23-7-1974 and in compliance with all the necessary formalities by the respondent in accordance with the said circular. Subject to the aforesaid observations this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.