A DAYASHANKAR Vs. NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts are not in dispute and as stated in the oral order of the learned single Judge, they are as follows:

(2.) We do not propsoe.in the instant case to go to many aspects of the matter, as in a similar case the Supreme Court has held the view that the employee shall be entitled to pro rata pension in respect of the service rendered by him with the Government. In Praduman Kumar Jain vs. Union of India the Supreme Court has taken notice of the facts that the appellant had joined the Central Government service as Technical Assistant and after working there for some time, joined the Indian Meteorological Department, after being selected through the Union Public Service Commission. He was placed on probation for a period of two years, permitted to cross the first efficiency bar, selected for appointment as Senior Engineer in the N.T.P.C. and as required, he resigned from the Central Government Service for the purpose of joining the N.T.P.C. He, however, delayed his joining the N.T.P.C. because his case for confirmation as Assistant Meteorolgist was under consideration of Central Government. The N.T.P.C. finally directed him to join on or before a particular date. In the meantime, however, he was promoted as Meteorologist Grade-I in the E.M.D. with effect from 22-9-1986 and posted at Pune. However, in order to pursue his case for confirmation, he decided to forego the promotion. Despite repeated representation, the I.M.D. did not confirm him and as such he submitted his resignation on 21-10-1986 to the I.M.D. He was relieved on 30-10-1986 by the I.M.D. and he joined the N.T.P.C. on 31-10-1986. On 11-2-1987 he again represented to the Central Government requesting for the grant of pro rata pension as he has served the Government for twelve years and eight months. The Director General, I.M.D., informed the appellant that since the seniority list of the cadre of Assistant Meteorologists has been quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, his case for confirmation will be considered according to rules on the basis of revised seniority list when finalised. Since no decision was taken by the I.M.D. for considerable time, the appellant approached the Tribunal seeking direction that he should be deemed to be a sub tantive employee of the Central Government within the meaning of Rule 13 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 and as such, entitled to pension and other retiral benefits under the rules. The Tribunal rejected the prayer. The Supreme Court, however, has held that the appellant had been appointed in substantive capacity against a permanent post of Assistant Meteorologist and is, therefore, entitled to pro rata pension and other terminal benefits in respect of the service rendered by him under the Central Government.

(3.) If the above principle is applied, it is obvious the appellants before us cannot be denied the pro rata pension for their previous service and other terminal benefits accruing for the said period of service. We accordingly allow the writ appeal and accordingly the writ petition and direct for determination of pro rata pension and other terminal benefits strictly treating the previous service as one completed before the next service has been taken up by the appellants.