UNION OF INDIA Vs. REVINDRAN NAIR B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India and its officers have filed this Original Petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2018 in O.A.No.694/2017, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The applicant before the Tribunal/ the 1st respondent herein had filed that O.A praying that communications through which he was informed that he was not entitled to a pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short) be set aside and for an order directing that he should be granted pensionary benefits by adding his apprenticeship period to his service and further by granting him additional five years weightage in terms of provisions contained in Rule 48B of the Rules. He also sought for a direction that the arrears of pensionary benefits shall be granted to him. The claim was allowed by the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal is now challenged before us. For the sake of clarity, the documents referred to in this judgment are referred to in the manner they are marked before the Tribunal.

(2.) The applicant was absorbed/appointed as a Mechanic in the Naval Dockyard, Mumbai in April, 1975. For about three years prior to that, he had been an Apprentice in the Dockyard Apprentice School. It is his case that he had earned certain promotions and in the year 1991, he had requested for voluntary retirement taking his service to be 20 years including his apprenticeship period mainly due to certain 'domestic problems'. According to the applicant, this request was turned down as a result of which he was forced to submit his resignation on 19.01.1992. On 2.6.2016, he filed Annexure-A2 representation before the Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard claiming pension under the Rules, after adding his three years apprenticeship period also to his service of 17 years. His request in Annexure-A2 was rejected by Annexure-A3 letter referring to Rule 16 of the Rules, which clearly provided that the apprenticeship period shall not count towards qualifying service for pension. The applicant, thereafter, addressed yet another representation (A4) referring to certain circulars/letters, which according to him, provided that apprenticeship service after attaining the age of 18 years is to be counted as qualifying service, provided the person in question was 'a paid apprentice' and had been employed against a sanctioned post. The authorities of the Naval Dockyard took up the claim of the applicant with the Western Naval Command through Annexure-A7 letter dated 21.4.2017. On 22.6.2017, a reply was sent to the Naval Dockyard by Western Naval Command reiterating that period of apprenticeship cannot be counted towards qualifying service for pension in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules and further pointing out that on resignation the applicant suffered forfeiture of his past service. That communication is produced along with the Original Application as Annexure-A8. A copy of Annexure-A8 together with a covering letter dated 15.7.2017 was sent to the applicant by the Naval Dockyard. This communication is produced as Annexure-A9 in the Original Application. The applicant, therefore, filed the aforesaid Original Application challenging Annexures-A3, A8 and A9. The respondents entered appearance and filed a reply statement reiterating the rule position and contending that the claim of the applicant cannot be sustained. On a consideration of the matter, the Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of Rule 48B of the Rules despite the fact that the said Rule is no longer in the statute book. The Tribunal found that after extending the benefit of Rule 48B, the applicant will have qualifying service for about 22 years. The Tribunal did not go into the question as to whether the applicant was entitled to count the period of apprenticeship together with the period of his service.

(3.) Sri.T.V.Vinu, the learned CGC appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Tribunal grossly erred in law in finding that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of Rule 48B. He would take us through the text of Rule 48B and submit that the Rule would apply only to persons retiring under Rule 48(1)(a) or Rule 48A or to those compulsorily retired under the provisions of the Fundamental Rules (FR 56) or the provisions of Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulations. He would further submit that the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules clearly provide that the period of apprenticeship shall not be counted as qualifying service for pension. He would also point out the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules which provides that resignation entails forfeiture of past service.