UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Southern Railway represented by the General Manager has filed this writ petition contending with regard to the interpretation of the Rule for revising the retirement benefits counting of past service and grant of retirement benefits to the second respondent.

(2.) THE facts of the case is that the second respondent after completion of his M.B.B.S. Degree joined the Armed Forces of the Union of India on 22.1.1967 and served there till 14.9.1972. On retirement from the Armed Forces, he was appointed in the Southern Railway on 9.8.1978 and after holding various posts in the Railways, he retired on superannuation on 31.3.2002. He retired as the Chief Medical Director of Southern Railway. Subsequent to joining the Railways, he had surrendered the gratuity received from the Army in the year 1995 in the sum of Rs.5,000/- together with interest thereon, by making a total payment of Rs.14,203/-. THErefafter, by order dated 19.12.2005, sanction was consequently accorded for counting the period rendered in Military service from 22.1.1967 to 14.9.1972 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Further, he made a representation to the administration contending that he was entitled to the benefit of five added years of service, as provided under Rule 2423-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code-Volume II, which was subsequently incorporated as Rule 45 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993 and also similar to Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. THE representation was rejected through communication dated 14.11.2002. THE second respondent has filed an Original Application in O.A.No.50 of 2003 on the file of the first respondent praying for the benefits of added years of service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and revision of the retirement benefits, which was allowed by order dated 20.10.2003 directing the Railway Administration to grant the benefit of additional years of service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits to the second respondent and accordingly revise the second respondent's retirement/terminall benefits. THE first respondent had further held that the second respondent would be entitled to the arrears of pension and allowances on such basis but without interest or costs. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 20.10.2003 made in O.A.No.50 of 2003, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) IN the Rule 1 of 45 proviso No.3 that is the rule position, this rule was amended and only third proviso was added which contemplates that this concession shall not be admissible to those who are eligible for counting their past service for superannuation pension unless they opted from the date of their retirement which option once exercised shall be final for the weightage of service under the sub rule of foregoing of the counting of past service. Therefore, according to the proviso to the General Rules exercise of option is incorporated, accordingly, the petitioner has exercised his option. Further as contemplated under Rule 306 of the Pension Rules similar to Rule 6(1) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 which says that provided also that this concession shall not be admissible to those who are eligible for counting their past service for superannuation pension unless they opt before the date of their retirement, which option once exercised shall be final, for the weightage of service under this sub-rule forgoing the counting of past service.