SURESH KUMAR SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired from service as Inspector General of Police on 31-3-2002. On 30-4-2003, H. K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal appointed him as an 'adviser' for a period of one year from 11-5-2003 on contract basis on a monthly pay of Rs. 16,000/- plus vehicle allowance Rs. 4,000/ -. On joining the said position, the petitioner sent a communication dated 1-5-2003 informing the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of M. P. that he has joined the said post of Adviser on 1-5-2003. In the annexure to the said letter he described his duties as "to impart advice to Education Trust for upgrading the general administration of technical standard of Engineering Colleges run by the trust".

(2.) THE said communication was sent apparently to meet the requirements of Rule 26 of All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 ('rules' for short), relevant portions of which read as under :-

(3.) WHEN the appointment of petitioner came to the notice of Central Government, it issued an official memorandum dated 10-7-2003 calling upon him to explain the reason for not obtaining its prior permission under Rule 26, for taking such employment. The petitioner sent a reply on 1-9-2003 contending that he was not required to take prior permission from the Central Government, as the Trust which employed him was not a commercial organisation and, therefore, his employment was not a 'commercial employment'. The Central Government was not satisfied with the said explanation. Therefore, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a notice dated 27-11-2003 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why a 50% cut should not be imposed in the petitioner's pension for a period of three years, for contravening Rule 26.