Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 410 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. CAPT. CHARANJIT PAL SINGH MANN

2005-11-08

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, SURJIT SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J. :- These two writ petitions seek judicial review of the same order of the State Administrative Tribunal, i.e. order dated 16.8.2001, passed in O.A. No. 1660 of 1997, filed by Capt. Charanjit Pal Singh Mann (petitioner in CWP No. 875 of 2002) against the State of Himachal Pradesh and others (petitioners in CWP No. 411 of 2002). Therefore, both of them are being disposed of by a common judgment. Capt. Charanjit Pal. Singh Mann shall hereafter be referred to as petitioner and State of Himachal Pradesh and others, as respondents. 2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner was recruited as Asstt. Sub Inspector in Punjab Police on 27 3.1951.While working with the Punjab Police, he joined Indian Army as an Emergency Commissioned Officer on 13.10.1963. When the recoganization of erstwhile State of Punjab took place, his services as a Police Officer, were allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, he was serving in the Army at that time. He was released from Army on 30.9.1970. He sought pre-mature/voluntary retirement on 13.o.1971, but his request was turned down. On 21.8.1975 he made another request for being retired on medical grounds. It appears that request was also not acceded to by the respondents. On 22.9.1975 he offered to resign as he wanted to go to U.K. for the treatment of his illness. He was informed on 22.10.1975 by the respondents that his request stood accepted with effect from 21.10.1975 (Forenoon). On 15.11.1985 he made a representation, seeking permission to join duty, as he had become a representation, seeking permission to join duty, as he had become medically fit after treatment in U.K. so that he could get pensionary benefits. His representation was rejected and the decision was communicated to him on 23.1.1986. Thereafter he filed an O.A., under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to the respondents for grant of pensionary benefits, including retirement gratuity, monthly pension and leave encashment alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. This O.A. was filed on 8.8.1997. Thereafter he filed an O.A., under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to the respondents for grant of pensionary benefits, including retirement gratuity, monthly pension and leave encashment alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. This O.A. was filed on 8.8.1997. On 16.8.2001 the State Administrative Tribunal disposed of the O.A. with the following direction to the respondents : "In view of the foregoing reasons the present original application is partly accepted and as a consequence thereof the respondents are directed to fix the pension of the applicant in accordance with the rules and to pay the arrears of pension to the applicant for three years prior to the filing of the present petition. The aforesaid directions be complied with within four months from today. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs." 3. The petitioner (Capt. Charanjit Pal Singh Mann) is aggrieved by the order, inasmuch as there is no direction regarding payment of future pension, payment of gratuity, payment of money equivalent to the salary for the leave period and the payment of interest. His grievance is that the Tribunal has not passed any order on his aforesaid claims, despite his having specifically pleaded for the grant of the same. 4. The respondents are aggrieved by the direction for the payment of pension. According to them, in the year 1975, when the resignation of the petitioner was accepted, there was no provision in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, for grant of pension to an employee, who had put in less than thirty years of qualifying service and that such a provision was made, vide Rule 48-A only in the year 1978, vide Central Civil Services (Pension) (Third Amendment) Rules, 1978, effective from the date of publication of such rules in the Gazette of India and those rules were published in the Gazette of India on 16.12.1978. Therefore, the State of Himachal Pradesh and others (writ petitioners in CWP No. 411 of 2002) have prayed for setting aside the order of the State Administrative Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal, while disposing of the O.A., filed by the petitioner, has placed reliance upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in Sudarshan Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 1995(2) Service Cases Today 250, equivalent to 1994(7) SLR 163. 5. The Tribunal, while disposing of the O.A., filed by the petitioner, has placed reliance upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in Sudarshan Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 1995(2) Service Cases Today 250, equivalent to 1994(7) SLR 163. In that case the writ petitioner was employed with Delhi Transport Corporation. He was appointed in the year 1953. In 1986 he submitted resignation. Gratuity was paid to him. At the time, when he submitted the resignation and received the amount of gratuity, there was no scheme for payment of pension to the employees of Delhi Transport Corporation. He was appointed in the year 1953. In 1986 he submitted resignation. Gratuity was paid to him. At the time when he submitted the resignation and received the amount of gratuity, there was no scheme for payment of pension to the employees of Delhi Transport Corporation. On 27.11.1992, Delhi Transport Corporation issued Office Order No. 16, thereby introducing pension scheme for its employees, who retired with effect from 3.8.1981 or thereafter. The order said that the employees, who retired with effect from 3.8.1981 onwards, would be entitled to pension as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. The petitioner in that case had put in more than 30 years services, when he submitted the resignation in the year 1986. He claimed pension in accordance with the provisions of Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which provides that a person on completion of 30 years qualifying service can seek voluntary retirement. He made a representation to the Delhi Transport Corporation. His representation was rejected on the ground that the pension scheme introduced, vide Order No.16, dated 27.11.1992, was applicable to the persons, who had retired with effect from the date mentioned therein, viz 3.8.1981, and no to the employees, who had resigned. The petitioner then approached Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that there could not have been any distinction between a person, who resigned or retired and therefore, when the petitioner had put in 30 years of qualifying service, he could not have been denied the benefit of pension, under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, simply for the reason that he had not retired but had voluntarily resigned. The pensionary benefit was ordered to be given to the petitioner because his case was covered by the provisions of Rule 48, as he had put in 30 years of qualifying service. 6. It may be stated that Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules says that at any time, after completing 30 years qualifying service, a Govt. servant may retire from service and in case t of such retirement, he is entitled to retiring pension. It was in view of the above factual position that the High Court of Delhi directed payment of pension, holding that even if the petitioner had submitted resignation, he was entitled to pension, because he had served for the requisite number of years. 7. There is another provision in the Pension Rules, viz. Rule 48-/> which provides that" a person can seek retirement on completion of 2 years qualifying service. No doubt, the petitioner had put in more then 20 years service, but he quit the service before Rule 48-A was incorporated in the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules. This Rut was introduced in the year 1978, by Central Civil Service (Pension (Third Amendment) Rules, 1978 and the amendment came into fore from the date of publication in the said Gazette on 16.12.1978. Sine Rule 48-A is not retrospective in its application, the petitioner is no entitled to the pension or other retrial benefits, under the provisions c this rule, as he had quite the service before the date of enforcement ( this rule. 8. In view of the above stated position, the writ petition, filed b the State of Himachal Pradesh and others, i.e. CWP No. 411 of 200: is allowed and the impugned order, dated August 16, 2001, of the State Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition, filed by the petitioner (Capt. Charanjit Pal Singh Mann) i.e. CWP No. 875 of 200; is dismissed. 9. This judgment by placed on the record of CWP No. 411 of 20C and its authenticated copy on the record of CWP No. 875 of 2002.