U O I Vs. REKHA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri H.K. Lal was serving as ACIO-I/G in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. It so happened that on 22nd February, 1988, he proceeded on casual leave. The leave was sanctioned for a period of 8 days i.e. till 7th March, 1988 and he was suppose to join duty on 8th March, 1988. However, for reasons which are not spelt out, he did not report back. Hence, departmental proceedings were initiated against him which resulted in the passing of an order of compulsory retirement against him on 12th March, 1990. He challenged the same, but without success. Luck alluded him further. He died on 23rd February, 1998. The unfortunate widow Smt. Rekha Lal expecting pensionary benefits, approached the Union of India, but met with no success. She then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the `Tribunal'). The Tribunal after going through the respective contentions of the parties, granted relief to the widow. It held that Shri H. K. Lal was entitled to pro rata pension with effect from 12th March, 1990 till 22nd November, 1998 and consequent upon his death, his wife was entitled to family pension. Interest @ 10% per annum was also awarded. The Tribunal in support of its findings, invoked Rule 49 of Central Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as `CCS Pension Rules'). The said Rule runs as under:- AMOUNT OF PENSION (1). In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate o half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service. (2) (a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall e calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensum. (b) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty-three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under Clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than [Rupees three hundred and seventy-five] per mensum;** notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b) the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of Rule 54. (3). In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half-year and reckoned as qualifying service. (4). The amount of pension finally determined under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-rule (2), shall be expressed in whole rupees and where the pension contains a fraction of a rupee it shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee.

(2.) The case of Union of India simply put, `is that Shri H.K. Lal was a habitual absentee' and due to his above-stated last absence, the same was treated as break in service and it was also so recorded in his service-book. This, it was stated, dis-entitled him and in consequence, his widow, from claiming the relief and in support, reliance was placed upon Rule 17A of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 28 of the CCS Pension Rules. For purposes of clarity, the said Rules also need to be re- produced as under :- Rule 17A of the Fundamental Rules:-

(3.) It was alleged that the break in service of Shri H.K. Lal was not condoned, and as such, on account of his absence from duty, he invited the consequence of forfeiture of his entire past service.