SATYA NARAIN YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was employed in the Central Ordinance Depot, Chheoki, Allahabad. He applied for the post of Personal Assistant, in the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Naini Unit, Naini, Allahabad, a Government of India undertaking. His application was forwarded by the Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki, Allahabad to the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. through Sena Ordnance Corps, Abhilekh, Secunderabad. The Petitioner was selected and appointed in the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. The Petitioner has been working in the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. since 25 -8 -1974. He was permanently absorbed in the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. on 10 -6 -1976. The Petitioner applied for retirement benefits to the Union of India but he has not been given any retirement benefits. From the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is apparent that the Union of India is accepting the Petitioner's claim to retirement benefits provided the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. gives a certificate that the Petitioner was absorbed in its service and his absorption was in the public interest. The Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. in its counter -affidavit has taken the stand that it is not for it to give a certificate that the Petitioner's absorption in the Indian Telephone Industries was in public interest and that such a declaration/certificate has to be given by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely the Union of India and the Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki, Allahabad.

(2.) THE matter is covered under Rule 37 of the Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Rule 37 runs as follows :

(3.) IN the result, a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to give retirement benefits to the Petitioner admissible under Rule 37 of the Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1972 without requiring him to furnish the certificate of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Naini Unit, Naini, Allahabad, that the Petitioner's appointment and absorption in the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. is in the public interest. It will be open to the Union of India and the Respondent No. 2 to consider whether the Petitioner's absorption in the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. was in public interest and in arriving at their decision they will ignore the fact that there is no certificate/declaration from the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. that the Petitioner's absorption is in public interest. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should decide the matter within a period of three months The Petitioner is entitled to his costs from Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 only.