KAMRUNISHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 11.4.1995 the petitioner was appointed on a Class IV post. Her appointment was on compassionate ground due to the death of her husband while in service. On 30.4.2005 she attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. She was paid all retiral benefits but for pension. Her pension was denied on the ground that she had only nine years, eight months and two days of qualifying service as against required ten years minimum qualifying service. She was also informed vide letter dated 18.1.2005 that she had taken extraordinary leave without pay for four months and 18 days which was deducted from her total service and, therefore, her qualifying service was less than ten years.

(2.) Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Original Application No.991/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (in short, "the Tribunal"). There she averred that as the extraordinary leave without pay taken by her was on medical grounds which was without break in service, the period of extraordinary leave should not have been deducted from the period of qualifying service. The respondents, in their reply, denied her claim and stated that under Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short, "the Rules 1972") extraordinary leave granted only on medical certificate can be counted as qualifying service. The respondents also stated that the period of extraordinary leave taken by the petitioner without medical certificate, therefore, had to be deducted and after such deduction her qualifying service was found to be less than minimum ten years for earning pension.

(3.) The Tribunal on the request of petitioner summoned her service book which revealed that she had taken 175 days of extraordinary leave without pay out of which 29 days of such leave was on production of medical certificate. Thus, even according to the service record of petitioner, she had taken 146 days of extraordinary leave without production of medical certificate. The petitioner admittedly did not claim before the Tribunal that she was unable to join the duty on account of civil commotion or for prosecuting higher scientific and technical studies. This being the situation, the Tribunal by order dated 12.12.2006, Annexure P1, held that the respondents rightly deducted the period of extraordinary leave without pay taken by the petitioner from the period of qualifying service and dismissed her original application. The petitioner then filed Review Application No.21/2007 on the ground that her length of qualifying service has not been calculated as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 49 of the Rules 1972. In the review application, the petitioner also submitted that if the length of her qualifying service had been calculated, as provided in sub-rule (3), she would easily fulfill the minimum requirement of ten years qualifying service. The Tribunal by order dated 5.5.1998, Annexure P2, disagreed with her submission and dismissed the review application also. It is in this background, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing of orders dated 12.12.2006 and 5.5.2008.