UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Union of India through Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat has challenged the order dated 6th May, 2009 passed in OA 1936/2008 titled Sh. Devendra Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi holding that the requirement of CCS (Pension) Rule 26 Sub-Rule (2) are met and allowing the original application and setting aside the order dated 15th October, 2007 passed by the petitioner whereby the request of respondent No. 1 for counting the service in the office of Prasar Bharti & Doordarshan w.e.f. 1st May, 1990 to 4th October, 2003 was rejected. The admitted facts are that the respondent No. 1 was working as a technical officer on direct recruitment basis w.e.f. 7th October, 2003 and he claimed the period of past service w.e.f. 1st May, 1990 to 4th October, 2003 be counted for all purposes. The plea of the respondent No. 1 was rejected on the ground that since his application had not been forwarded through proper channel, his past service could not be computed under the Rules.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 had applied for the post of technical officer in the Aviation Research Centre, Director General of security under the Cabinet Secretariat while working as an Engineering Assistant in the Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Gwalior. On his selection to the post of technical officer, the respondent No.1 was relieved from Doordarshan on 4th October, 2003 and he joined his new position on 7th October, 2003, however, he was allowed a lien for two years on his previous post. The respondent No. 1 had sought counting of his past service on the plea that the service has been continuous throughout and and as he had been relieved properly and his resignation by Prasar Bharti and Doordarshan was in terms of CCS (Pension) Rule 26(2). The relevant Rule 26(2) CCS (Pension) Rules is as under:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of the respondent No. 1 does not fall within the purview of the exception clause of Rule 26 (2) as it had not been made through proper channel with permission of the Controlling Authority. The respondent No.1 had admitted that the application was made by him directly and not routed through his erstwhile employer, however, according to respondent No. 1, it was on account of peculiar circumstances at that time as the respondent No. 1 had to apply within 15 days and he was undergoing training at IIT Kanpur as a sponsored candidate from Doordarshan and as only 5 to 6 days were left in the deadline and considering the postal delays, he had applied directly, however, the intimation was sent by him to his office at Gwalior immediately and a NOC (No Objection Certificate) was also requested. The request of the respondent No. 1 was responded by OM dated 6th September, 1999 asking the respondent No. 1 to give an undertaking regarding deposit of amount of Rs. 2 lacs as per the bond before leaving the present post.