SANTHOSHKUMAR S. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is aggrieved with the Ext. P1 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for reason of confinement of his pensionary benefits to three years prior to the filing of the O.A. However, at the time of hearing, especially, based on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3, it is argued that as of now the Department represented by the 2nd and 3rd respondents are willing to pay the pro-rata pension for the service rendered by the petitioner with them, to the KSEB.

(2.) On brief facts, it has to be noticed that the petitioner joined the Department of Lighthouses and Lightships (hereinafter 'Department') on 18.1.1992. He resigned from the Department on 26.12.2003 for the purpose of joining the KSEB, with No Objection Certificate. He joined the KSEB on 30.12.2003 and he is still continuing in service. Immediately after his joining the KSEB, considering the fact that the KSEB is a Board constituted by the State and his earlier service was in a Central Government Department, the petitioner applied for consideration of his prior service in the Department, for the purpose of reckoning pensionable service in the KSEB. The petitioner also is said to have applied for the same through the KSEB. However, no favourable response having been received from the Department, the petitioner gave up such a prayer and sought for pension from the Department deeming his resignation as a retirement, making him eligible for minimum pension for the service rendered of more than ten years in the Department. The Tribunal found the claim to be competent. But, however, confined it to three years prior to the filing of the O.A., which is as per the binding precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court. The O.P. has been filed challenging the restriction of the pensionary benefits from three years, prior to filing O.A.

(3.) As we noticed, there is a different stand taken by the Department before this Court by way of a counter affidavit dated 27.8.2019. It is also submitted by the learned Central Government Counsel Sri. T.V. Vinu that at the stage of the Tribunal, the KSEB had not entered appearance and hence the Department had taken a stand that there could be no pro-rata pension payment to the petitioner especially, when the subsequent employer had not expressed a willingness to accept the same and to pay pension. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB however, submits that they had already approached the Department for the benefit of pro-rata pension, to be granted to the petitioner herein. We need not go into such controversies since none seeks to sustain the order of the Tribunal confining the pension payment as such to three years prior to the filing of the O.A. There is now a departure insofar as the consideration of the past period of service for the purpose of pension in the subsequent employment by the following statement: