DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION Vs. S.D. MOHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner calls in question the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the 'Tribunal') dated 31st January, 2002 whereby the petitioner was directed to take into account the service of the respondent rendered in Rehabilitation Finance Administration, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (for short the 'RFA') between 7th January, 1957 and 27th October, 1960 for purpose of computing pensionary benefits.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) THERE is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Nothing has been produced before us by the appellant which could show that the respondent's appointment in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tees Hazari was a fresh appointment. It also needs to be noted that there is not even a single day's break in the service of the respondent while switching over from the RFA Department to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tees Hazari, Delhi. The respondent worked in the RFA Department till October 27, 1960 and on the next day viz., October 28, 1960, he joined the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tis Hazari, Delhi. Even if there was a break in service of the respondent and he was given fresh appointment in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tis Hazari, Delhi, the period of break was liable to be condoned in view of the principle laid down in the Government of India O.M. No. F.3(15)/EV(A)/76 dated December 3, 1977 which reads as under: