PROF S. SUNDARAJAN Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondent to accord proportionate pension in terms of Rule 49(2)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) on the ground that he had completed 18 years of service in terms of the Rules and he is entitled for proportionate pension. The case of the petitioner is that, he joined the services of the respondent-Institution on 1.5.1991 as Associate Professor. He was promoted as a Professor w.e.f. 17.5.1994. The petitioner took voluntary retirement on 31.5.2009. When he applied for grant of pension in terms of Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules, the same was not granted on the ground that the petitioner has not put in qualifying service of 20 years as required under Rule 48A of the Rules. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) Sri. P.S. Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 48A of the Rules before amendment prescribes the qualifying service as 30 years. As Rule 48 was amended by insertion of Section 48A fixing the qualifying service for grant of full pension as 20 years, but Rule 48A relates to the full pension. In case if the employee of the respondent-Institution had not completed 20 years of service, but had completed 10 years of qualifying service, such employee is entitled for proportionate pension in terms of Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules. The scope and ambit of Rule 48A and Rule 49(2)(b) is different. One deals with full pension and the other deals with proportionate pension. In case if an employee has not completed 10 years of service, he will not be entitled for pension, but will be entitled for gratuity in terms of Rule 49(1) of the Rules. In view of Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules, the petitioner is entitled for pension as against number of years of service he has put in, in the respondent-Institution. However, the respondent-Institution, without considering the provisions of Rule 49 of the Rules, has erroneously denied the same.

(3.) Sri. Kasturi, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that Rule 48A is the Rule which prescribes qualifying service and the required qualifying service is 20 years. Admittedly, the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service and he has put in only 18 years of service. Rule 49 cannot be read in isolation as it does not refer to notwithstanding what is contained in Rule 48A. As such, when the qualifying service is fixed as 20 years, any service rendered less than 20 years will not qualify for the pensionary benefit.