UNION OF INDIA Vs. R M AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer for quashing order dated 2.7.2009 (P.1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') whereby directions have been issued to the respondents to given an option to the applicant as required under Rule 39 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for brevity 'the 1972 Rules') for grant of compensation pension.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on his appointment by the Central Water Commission, the respondent joined as Instructor, Heavy Earth moving at Technical Training Centre, Kota, Rajasthan on 2.4.1962. He was transferred to TT Centre, Nangal in November, 1967. The respondent was declared quasi permanent in May, 1965 by the Central Water Commission. On 28.2.1974 (P.4) the respondent was transferred to Baira Siul Hydel Project. On 20.3.1974, the Central Water Commission informed the Baira Siul Hydel Project that certain Technical Training Centre courses run by the project were being closed w.e.f. 31.3.1974 and respondent who was sent to that project on deputation would not be treated on deputation beyond 31.3.1974. It was suggested that he might be absorbed in the Project w.e.f. 1.4.1974. The petitioner claimed that in February, 1977 Baira Siul Project went to National Hydro Electric Power Corporation. The respondent on medical grounds could not continue in service and was accordingly relieved on 31.1.1977. The respondent was given gratuity but he was not allowed any pension. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioners, the respondent filed Original Application before the Tribunal for issuance of direction to the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits by urging that as he has put in 15 years of service in the Central Government upto 31.1.1977, when he took voluntary retirement, he was entitled to pension under Rule 37 read with Rule 49(2)(b) and under Rule 19(2)(b) of the 1972 Rules by arguing that the qualifying service required for this pension is 10 years. The OA was disposed of by the Tribunal on 25.1.1998 (A.6).

(3.) THE respondent filed OA No.301 Pb of 2008 before the Tribunal for quashing of order dated 15.5.2007 (A.1). THE respondent asserted that he remained a Central Government employee throughout his service from 2.4.1962 to 31.1.1971 and being a temporary employee he was entitled for gratuity for the period of his service in the Commission from 2.4.1962 to 28.2.1971. THErefore under Rule 11(10)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 he was paid the amount of Rs. 6661/-as gratuity. THE petitioner urged that the respondent was not entitled to benefit of the provisions of Rule 39 of the 1972 Rules. THE Tribunal after relying on its earlier orders and taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules observed that the case of the respondent is not covered under Rule 26 as when a post is abolished w.e.f. 31.3.1974 and deputation is being cancelled without there being any possibility of the respondent being called back to his original post then his case would be covered by Rule 39 of the 1972 rules. THE resignation submitted by the respondent would not make any difference because the post was abolished. His case was found to be covered under Rule 39 of the 1972 Rules. THE Tribunal further held that the petitioners cannot absolve themselves of their responsibility of paying the dues of the respondent by thrusting the responsibility on the respondent on the ground that the respondent had submitted resignation. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. THE Tribunal after considering Rules 26 and 39 of the 1972 rules has rightly concluded in para 10 as under: