UNION OF INDIA Vs. G P SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BETWEEN the technicality of the law and equity the Tribunal could not imbalance one incumbent i. e., V. D. Sharma who received relief for pro -rata pension and deny the same relief to G. P. Sah. Both were Government of India employees. Both had their status as quasi -permanent being made into permanent and both had their services transferred to UCIL.

(2.) THE contention before the court is that technically the two cases are different. The technicality is that V.D. Sharma applied for pro -rata pension While he was in service whereas the other incumbent G. P. Shah was watching the case of V.D. Sharma and having found his colleague successful in the litigation similarly applied for the same relief, though after retirement. These are the issues.

(3.) THE observation of the Tribunal in the contempt case in paragraph 9 is The respondents shall grant prorata pension to the applicant for the services he rendered to the Government before his absorption in UCIL provided he returns the amounts of contributory provident fund he has already received alongwith interests. The applicant shall be paid the retirement benefits within three months from the date he returns the contributory provident fund he has already received. The respondents shall also pay him interests calculated @ 12% on his pro -rata pension, the interests accruing from the date he returns the pro -rata pension. In case the respondents do not comply with this order within time, the applicant shall be at liberty to file contempt application again. No costs."