UNION OF INDIA Vs. DURGA PRASAD YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed against order of Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) dt. 19.11.2013 finally holding that the respondent has completed minimum qualifying service & that makes him entitled for pensionary benefits for the service rendered in the organization.

(2.) BRIEF facts which are relevant for our consideration & can be noticed from the pleadings available on record are that the respondent no. 1 Durga Prasad Yadav served in defence service from 15.03.1972 and took voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years, 7 months & 15 days service on 31.01.1992. An advertisement thereafter came to be issued by Staff Selection Commission ("SSC") inviting applications for the post of Clerk and the respondent being eligible also submitted application under ex -service man quota. It is to be noted that there was some confusion with the SSC as to whether the respondent could be considered as ex -service man and sought clarification from the Department. The Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defense clarified on 17.10.1994 that the applicant is ex -service man based on OM no. 36034/5/85 dt. 14.04.1987 for the purpose of reservation to a post in government but despite the clarification made from the Ministry of Defense the SSC didn't consider the respondent eligible under the ex -service man quota and indisputably if he would have been considered under the ex -service man quota the respondent would have been appointed along with others who were offered appointment in July/August 1995 participated in the selection along with him pursuant to the advertisement dt. 17.04.1993.

(3.) PRIOR thereto he filed original application before the Tribunal bearing no. 186/2003 claiming fixation, salary & seniority and other consequential benefits w.e.f. July/August, 1995 when other similarly situated applicant who had participated along with him in the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement dt. 17.04.1993 are offered appointment but that application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dt. 12.09.2007 holding that as he has not worked during the intervening period that will not make him entitled for seniority & salary prayed for by him but after he retired from service and the respondent had not released his terminal benefits including pension to which he would have been otherwise entitled for, original application came to be filed by him before the Tribunal bearing no. 606/2012 and his grievance was that he was never at fault and for long six years he was awaiting his appointment and despite a clarification was made by the authorities still the SSC has sat tight over the matter and failed to consider the respondent as ex -service man to whom the appointment was finally offered on 19.05.2001 and when he was not at fault at least he could not be deprived of minimum qualifying service which makes him entitled for grant of pension & other consequential retiral benefits in furtherance thereof to which the incumbent is ordinarily was entitled for.