GOURANGA DHAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2020 delivered in WP(C) 748 of 2019 (Shri Gouranga Dhar vs. The State of Tripura and Ors), this intra-court appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.

(2.) Basic facts based on which the writ petition is structured are admitted. The core question raised in the writ petition is that whether the writ petitioner is entitled to restoration of pension on completion of 15 years from the day of commutation of full pension, in terms of the Finance Department Memorandum No.F.8(7)- FIN(G)/88/II dated 30.09.1988 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and the memorandum of the Finance Department No. F.8(14)-FIN(G)/86 dated 11.03.1987 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). Restoration of pension has been denied by the respondents. Having referred to the circular dated 08.04.1976 issued by the Government of India, Department of Expenditure, as claimed to have been adopted in Tripura (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), the petitioner has urged this court to restore his pension on expiry of 15 years from the day of receiving the commutation proceeds of full pension. There is no dispute that pension payment order in favour of the petitioner under Rule 37 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 was issued on 05.10.1985. On the body of the pension payment order, it has been clearly noted as follows:

(3.) It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had received the benefits of commutation of full pension on 05.08.1988. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 13.02.2020 has observed that in the year 1985, the petitioner had retired from the State Government service and got absorbed in the Rural Electrification Corporation (RECL for short) in the same year without break. Rule 37 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 which has been adopted by the State Government provides that the government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a Corporation or Company wholly or substantially owned and controlled or financed by the Government, shall, if such absorption is declared by the Government in public interest, be deemed to have retired from the service from the date of such absorption and would be eligible to receive pension and retiral benefits which he may elect and from such date, as may be determined. Rule 37 A of the said Rules prescribes for payment of lump sum amount to the retired government employed on absorption in a corporation or a company. It has been observed that the employee may have two options to choose viz. (a) on his application, a lump sum amount not exceeding the commuted value of 1/3rd of his pension (b) a terminal benefit equal to twice the amount of lump sum amount as referred to, subject to the condition that the government servant surrenders the right to draw 2/3rd of his pension. Along with the affidavit, the respondents have produced a copy of the undertaking dated 20.05.1987 which was tendered by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred the option (b) claiming 2/3rd pension to be commuted on absorption in the REC Ltd and he had surrendered his right of drawing 2/3rd of the pension from the date of payment of terminal benefit equal to the commuted value of the balance amount of pension. After such commutation was made, the petitioner was entitled to get 1/3rd of pension, but as he opted for the terminal benefit (b) he was not eligible for further pension. In this perspective facts which are not controverted even by the petitioner, learned single Judge has observed as follows: