UNION OF INDIA Vs. B L GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) directed the Union of India, petitioner herein, to pay to the respondent prorata retirement/terminal benefits for the service rendered by him with the Central Ordance Depot (hereinafter called the COD), Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, from 21st January, 1944 to 9th August, 1963 w.e.f. 6th March, 1985. The Tribunal further directed that this benefit be computed and paid within a period of two months. Aggrieved by this order. Union of India filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order, inter alia, on the grounds that the respondent herein resigned his post in the Army Ordnance Corps before being absorbed in the State Trading Corporation Limited (hereinafter called the STC). He was not to get benefit of his past service. His absorption was subject to the above two conditions. Moreover, his joining the STC Ltd. was not in public interest. Therefore, not entitled to retiral benefits.

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge, the brief facts of the cas^are that Mr. B.L. Gupta, respondent herein, was employed as LDC in the COD, Delhi Can ft. He joined STC Ltd., in July, 1958 on deputation. He kept his lien with the COD, Delhi Cantt. He while on the deputation, cleared the departmental examination of Assistant Grade in his parent organisation. STC accepted to take the respondent as Assistant provided he was relieved by his parent organisation after terminating his lien. It was further stipulated by the STC that his application would be treated as a fresh recruitment and he would not be given benefit of his past service rendered with the Government Department. Respondent accepted these conditions. Accordingly he sought relieving order from the COD, Delhi Cantt. with the permission to take up the post of Assistant with STC. The Army Headquarters allowed this request of the respondent subject to the condition that; (1) he resigns his post of LDC and (2) he would not ask for any benefit of the service rendered as AOC, Delhi Cantt.

(3.) That after getting absorbed permanently with the STC, respondent approached the petitioner for restoration of benefit of past service rendered by him in COD, Delhi Cantt. This was declined in view of the fact that he had resigned from the Government service with clear understanding that his past service would not be counted towards retiral benefits. The second ground taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal for noncomputing the past service was that his appointment in the STC was not in public interest.