LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-472

SUMANT KUMAR TYAGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 07, 2012
Sumant Kumar Tyagi Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 06.08.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2698/2010, the petitioner's Original Application No.2909/2005 was revived on a limited remand. The operative portion of the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court reads as under:-

(2.) CONSEQUENTLY , the only question before the Tribunal on the said limited remand was whether the petitioner was entitled to any pension on his being compulsorily retired with effect from 31.08.1984. It was also directed by the High Court that in case the petitioner was found entitled to pension, the Tribunal was also to determine the question as to from which date he would be entitled.

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed on 27.05.1964 and his date of compulsory retirement, as indicated above, was 31.08.1984. As such his entire duration of service came to 20 years 3 months and 5 days. He was on extraordinary leave for 9 months and 26 days. Consequently, he was left with 19 years, 5 months and 9 days. Furthermore, he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty between 15.11.1980 to 30.11.1984 and this period has also been treated as extraordinary leave. As a result of all this, his qualifying service came to 15 years 7 months and 23 days. He was required to have a minimum qualifying service of 20 years for his entitlement to pension. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not have this minimum qualifying service of 20 years. We note that normally the period for entitlement to pension is 30 years of qualifying service as provided in Rule 48, however, in the case of voluntary retirement, the minimum qualifying service for entitlement to pension is 20 years as prescribed in Rule 48-A. Thus, even if the petitioner's case is considered as one of voluntary retirement, he would not have the minimum qualifying service of 20 years to enable him to be entitled for pension. Consequently, we find no error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in concluding that the petitioner did not have the minimum qualifying service to entitle him for pension.