SHRIKRISHNA RUPRAOJI METKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disatisfied with the order dated 29-7-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, in Original Application no. 2055 of 2002, the petitioner has challenged the same in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has held the applicant/petitioner not eligible for the pension.

(2.) The petitioner had filed Original Application No. 2055/02 before the tribunal stating therein that having been appointed in 1977 he came to be declared as quasi-permanent in 1980 and was transferred from Ratnagiri to nagpur where he continued to serve till 2-6-1987. During his service at Nagpur he suffered from illness and, as such, due to ill-health he tendered his resignation on 2-6-1987 which eventually came to be accepted on 11-11-1987. A certificate was accordingly issued by the Department on 1-9-1999. Thus, the petitioner worked from 31-3-1977 to 1-6-1987 as Transmission Executive at All India radio.

(3.) It was the case of the petitioner that he, having completed 10 years and two months' service, was entitled to pensionary benefits, which was not granted to him. He stated that he become eligible for pension having completed ten years of service after the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission which came into effect with effect from l-1-1986. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon of decision of Apex Court in Union of India and ors. vs. Dr. Vijayapurapu subbayamma, (2000) 7 SCC 662 to support her contention that the petitioner was entitled to pension after completing service often years. Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, stated that at any rate the petitioner was entitled to pro rata pension and for that purpose she relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Praduman Kumar Jain vs. Union of india, reported in 1994 (69) F. L. R. 510 : 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 548.