UNION OF INDIA Vs. M S HEBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India is in appeal against the order of the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had directed that the respondent should be paid the pension, and since the original respondent has retired in the meantime, the legal representatives should be paid the family pension. Admittedly, the applicant before the Tribunal was an officer in the Indian Police Service. Having joined in the service in the year 1948, he resigned from service with effect from 18-1-1968. From 1973 onwards, he has been making representation to the Union of India through the State Government that pension should be given to him in relaxation of the relevant provisions of the rules which clearly debars him from getting pension by exercising power under Rule 3 of the All-India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 hereafter referred to as "the Residuary Matters Rules").

(2.) The State Government having considered the representation filed by the employee did recommend his case to the Union of India for necessary relaxation to the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the All-India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the retirement Benefits Rules") and grant pension to the employee concerned. The Union Government, however, was not persuaded to accept the recommendation of the State Government, and rejected the representation of the employee concerned, he approached the Tribunal by filing application for necessary relief as already stated. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment, considering all relevant facts, came to the conclusion that the rejection of the representation by the Union Government is arbitrary and therefore, by invoking the powers under Rule 3 of the Residuary Rules and being of the opinion that the employee was entitled to get pension, issued the impugned direction. The Tribunal held that, though the employee concerned was entitled to get pension with effect from the date of his resignation, since sufficient time had elapsed between the date of resignation and a rejection of his representation before the Union of India, it granted the relief for one year prior to the filing of the OA, i. e. , 26-10-1993, and further, since the original applicant died during the tendency of the application, the Tribunal also directed that the family pension should be paid to the dependant of the original applicant on a monthly basis in accordance with the Rules.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India contended that since under the Retirement Benefits Rules, an employee who resigns from the service is not entitled to get any pension and the recommendations of the state Government were not accepted by the Union Government for invoking the power of relaxation as contained in Rule 3 of the Residuary Matters rules, the Tribunal was wholly without jurisdiction in granting the relief sought for. Learned counsel also further urged that the person concerned having retired as early as in the year 1968, was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the year 1994, after a lapse of this length of time.