UNION OF INDIA Vs. V C POULOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARMY Postal Service (for short "APS") is manned mostly by experienced employees of Postal Department of Government of India, taken on deputation. These non-Regular-Cadre officers taken on deputation and working along with regular cadre officers and other ranks of ARMY during service mostly in forward areas are given ranks, uniform, pay and other benefits by the ARMY. However, the Postal employees going on deputation to ARMY retain their lien in parent department and retire on superannuation under the Service Rules of the Postal Department. Respondent is one such person who went from Postal Department on deputation to the ARMY, served rest of his service in the ARMY, availed housing loan from the Postal Department by virtue of his lien in service, retired at the age of 58 in the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel, though regular ARMY Lieutenant Colonel retires at the age of 52. While every similarly placed Postal employee retiring after service in the ARMY claim retirement benefits and pension from Postal Department, respondent wants pension from ARMY as a retired Cont.Case (C).No.218 of 2010 Lieutenant Colonel which is declined. It is this unique claim of the respondent to have duration of service under Postal Service by virtue of his lien; and pension from ARMY that led to the complex litigation in two High Courts.

(2.) THE Union of India and its Officers are the appellants herein, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing computation of pension and other benefits due to the respondent treating him as having retired from the Army as Lieutenant Colonel, with effect from 30.04.2000. THE review petition filed by the official respondents in the writ petition was also dismissed. THE judgment in the writ petition and also the order in the review petition are both assailed in this appeal. Both the judgment and the order relied on Exhibit P16 judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana to hold that the respondent is entitled for retirement benefits as a Lieutenant Colonel retired from the Army. THE respondent has also filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the judgment in the writ petition.

(3.) THE respondent challenged the order directing relinquishment of Commission in a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. THE said writ petition was numbered as C.W.P.7369 of 2000. When it came up on 11.07.2000, it was submitted on behalf of the official respondents that the petitioner will be deemed to have retired in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel with effect from 30.04.2000 and that the order regarding relinquishment of Commission would stand withdrawn. It was also recorded that the petitioner, respondent herein, shall get the retiral benefits as admissible under the rules and the further submission of the counsel for the official respondents that it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps to report to his parent employer was also recorded. THE said offer was accepted by the respondent herein and Exhibit P16 order dated 11.07.2000 was passed. Subsequently, the official respondents moved a review application, by which the Movement Order (Exhibit P15 herein) was also treated as withdrawn. THE same was permitted by Exhibit P17 Cont.Case (C).No.218 of 2010 order dated 02.03.2001. In effect, the respondent was not required to report to the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle and he was deemed to have retired from the APS, but subject to his retiral benefits being granted as per rules applicable to him.