VISHWA NATH PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 4-9-1954 the petitioner was appointed as Ticket Collector in North Eastern Railway and was confirmed on that post on 6-1-1958. In 1966 he was promoted as Senior Ticket Collector and was confirmed on that post on 9-9-1974. The petitioner resigned his post with effect from 21-12-1974 after having completed 20 years of service in the North Eastern Railway. On an application moved by the petitioner he was appointed to the post of a Lecturer in Law in K. K. Degree College, (J. N. College) Lucknow affiliated to the Lucknow University. This application was moved while the petitioner was in service. The petitioner, however, requested the Divisional Superintendent (P). North Eastern Railway, Lucknow to allow him to take up the job of Lecturer in law, undertaking that he would fulfil all the conditions laid down by the Railway Board for officers going on deputation. The Divisional Superintendent, Lucknow accepted the request of the petitioner to proceed on deputation as Lecturer in Law in Jai Narain Degree College for a period of two years. The condition imposed was that the petitioner shall deposit the Service Contributions with the Railway regularly and if he failed to do so, he would be liable to be recalled for breach of undertaking. He was also required to report for duty to the Railway Administration after the expiry of two years. On being relieved by the North Eastern Railway, the petitioner joined his duty as Lecturer in Law in Jai Narain Degree College, Lucknow. On 24-12-1974 the petitioner requested the Divisional Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow that his resignation be accepted in terms of Railway Board's letter No. F/(P) 67 PNI/18 dated 18-9-1971. In pursuance of the directions of the Railway Board the petitioner was directed to deposit P. F. contribution for the period 1-1-1973 to 31-12-1974 and he deposited a sum of Rs. 888/- with the Railway authorities. His resignation was accepted thereafter with effect from 24-12-1974.

(2.) The petitioner was confirmed as Lecturer in Law with effect from 9-9-1974. The petitioner deposited his pension certificate and opted for pensionary benefits permissible under the Rules and requested opposite party No. 2 to make payment of pensionary benefits. In order to be entitled to pensionary benefits the petitioner drew the attention of the Railway authorities to a Board's letter which has been filed as Annexure 15 to the writ petition. On the basis of the said document, the petitioner contended that a Railway servant who has been permitted to be absorbed to a service or post in or under a Corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government shall, if such absorption is declared by the Government to be in the public interest, be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits. The petitioner had already indicated his option for pensionary benefits. The Railway authorities intimated to the petitioner that his representation for claim of pensionary benefits was considered but the acceptance of another employment had not been treated as in public interest and on that account his claim for pensionary benefits was not sustainable. The other ground on which the claim was rejected was that the resignation, with a view to accept another employment, had not been treated as in public interest. It may be noted that the attention of the Railway authorities was drawn to Annexure 19 to the writ petition which pointed out to the Railway Authorities that the expression 'public interest' connotes such interests as affect the general public and it does not necessarily mean the whole of the public at large. Even when the petitioner had drawn the attention of the Railway authorities to Annexure 19, the petitioner's representation was rejected. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioner has come up to this Court and has challenged the rejection of his representation for pensionary benefits.

(3.) The petition was opposed by the opposite parties who filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition. The main stand taken taken by the opposite parties is that the resignation of the petitioner from Railway service with a view to take up another employment was not in public interest and that the Railway Board's letter. Annexure 15, was not applicable to the case as his resignation from Railway service and taking up employment with Jai Narain Degree College was not found by the Railway authorities to be in public interest.