RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 28th March, 2006 by which OA 1670/2005 had been dismissed. The controversy may be succinctly stated. Petitioner seeks to have the additional benefit of his past service for the period from 1.3.1979 to 19.1.1982 as a Legal Assistant in the Office of Official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, as petitioner had enjoyed the addition of 5 years as qualifying service in terms of Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition may be briefly noted: Petitioner joined as a Legal Assistant in the Office of Official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. He applied for being appointed as Public Prosecutor in CB1 and was selected through U.P.S.C and was posted as a Public Prosecutor on 22.1.1982. He became Senior Public Prosecutor on 5.1.1988, Deputy Legal Advisor on 21.9.1998 and Addl. Legal Advisor on 10.3.2004. Petitioner superannuated on 31 st July, 2005. Petitioner has been given the benefit of adding qualifying service in special circumstances in terms of Rule 30 whereby he has had the benefit of five years added service for the purpose of computation of pension. Petitioner additionally seeks that benefit of past service for the period from 1.3.1979 to 19.1.1982 be also given to him. It would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce the relevant provisions for facility of reference which were duly extracted in the impugned judgment; Rule 3(q):

(3.) We have heard Ms. Jyoti Singh who appears for the respondents in opposition to the writ petition. She relies on the second proviso to Rule 30 as quoted above and underlined.