DHANI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was discharged from the Indian Army on 5.8.1964 after completing 22 years and 234 days of service. He was enrolled in S.S.B. as Head Constable on 18.9.1967. He retired on 15.6.1979. Petitioner made several representations seeking pension. He was informed vide Annexures P-3 to P-7 dated 15.9.1994, 19.11.1994, 26.6.1995, 16.10.1995 and 11.3.1996, respectively that his case was not covered under the rules. Petitioner also served a legal notice upon the respondents on 11.3.1998. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court for the redressal of his grievance by filing CWP No. 629/2001. The same was decided by the Court on 20.4.2007. Petitioner filed representation on 3.9.2010. The decision was conveyed to the petitioner on 18.7.2007. There is a reference to rule 3(q) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules and rule 49 while rejecting case of the petitioner. According to the respondents, amended rules have come into force with effect 1.1.1986 vide notification 20.7.1988 and since the petitioner retired from S.S.B. on 15.6.1979, rule 49 could not be implemented qua the petitioner. Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging order dated 18.7.2007 Annexure P-13. Reply has been filed by the respondents.

(2.) Mr. P.P. Chauhan has strenuously argued that his client has completed ten years of qualifying service and, thus, is entitled to pension. According to him, case of his client is covered by sub-rule (2) of rule 49 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, as applicable at the time of retirement of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Anup Rattan has vehemently argued that petitioner was appointed initially for a period of one year and thereafter neither he was given substantive status nor was he confirmed and, thus, his status was of a temporary employee. He has referred to rule 13 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.