G. RANGARAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered the Orissa Judicial Service on 2-4-37. His date of birth is 1-1-1906. Thus he was more than 31 years old at the time of entry into the service. Naturally he could not derive the advantage of getting full pension. He accordingly made a representation on 3-4-44 that the benefits of Art. 404-A of the O.S.R., may be extended to him by addition of five years to his service for pension. Admittedly this rule had no application to bis case as it does not apply to the eases of incumbents who joined service subsequent to 23-2-37. Government, however, took a favourable decision in favour of the petitioner on 6-10-44 and gave him a concession under that Article. The result was that period of 5 years was added to his service and this fact was noted in the history of the Service Book of the petitioner. In the usual course, the petitioner retired on 1-4-61 as a District Judge. Under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 which came into on 5-3-1963 the petitioner was entitled to the same benefits as are extended to the members of the Indian Administrative Service. On 20-1-64, a letter was issued from the office of the Accountant General (Annexure B) wherein the petitioner's qualifying service was taken to be 24 years and not 29 years. Actual service put in by the petitioner was 24 years, but if the concession was extended to him then his qualifying service would be 29 years. The petitioner made representations and memorials which were rejected. This writ application is accordingly filed for issuing a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to calculate the pension of the petitioner on the basis that his qualifying service was 29 years.

(2.) The Accountant-General of orissa (Opposite Party No. 2) did not file any counter. The State of Orissa (Opposite Party No. 1) filed a counter without disputing any of the facts asserted in the writ application. The result, therefore, is factually the petitioner's stand is not disputed.

(3.) The contention urged before us by the learned Government Advocate is that the Pension Rules governing the members of the Indian Administrative Service would apply to the Petitioner's case and there is no provision in such rule that any period of service would be added to the actual period of service done by any officer. The argument; is wholly misconceived and does not touch the essence of the matter.