Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1379 (PAT)

Rana Ram Yatan Singh v. Union Of India

2007-08-20

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha appearing for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction upon the respondent Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IPCL) to consider the services rendered by petitioner earlier under Heavy Engineering Corporation (HEC), Ranchi in commutation of retirement benefits payable to him. 3. Some basic facts are not disputed that petitioner was initially appointed as Work Sarkar on 23.3.1963 under HEC, Ranchi. He worked under HEC till 9.6.1977. In the year 1997 {sic1977 ?)petitioner came across an advertisement issued by the IDPL. The advertisement also had a post of Accounts Assistant to be filled up on due selection. Petitioner applied for the same said post of Accounts Assistant under IDPL and was offered an appointment letter contained in Annexure-1. Petitioner was expected to join his post under IDPL by 10.6.1977. Petitioner resigned his earlier post under HEC and the same was accepted on 9.6.1977. From 10.6.1977 petitioner has worked under IDPL and subsequently when a scheme for voluntary retirement was circulated by IDPL petitioner choose to opt for the same. 4. Petitioner is aggrieved because while working out his claim the respondent IDPL, Muzaffarpur has not taken into consideration his past services under HEC, Ranchi. In the opinion of petitioner since both the organisations were Public Sector Undertaking, therefore, he was entitled to carry his service and its benefit under the new employer. Since respondent IDPL refused to accept this position petitioner has had to file this writ application. Learned counsel for petitioner tries to draw my attention to some of the provisions contained in Appendix-11 of the CCS (Pension) Rules to show that he is entitled to what he is claiming. 5. Counsel for respondents on the other half have taken a stand that claim of petitioner is totally misplaced. They state that appointment of petitioner under IDPL was a fresh appointment based on an advertisement issued in this regard and a perusal of Annexure-1 would show and confirm the same said position. He also submits that reading of Annexure-1 with Annexure-2 which is the acceptance letter of the resignation of petitioner from HEC would demonstrate that petitioner voluntarily resigned from HEC and accepted a fresh appointment under respondent IDPL for a better career option with a new opening. He also submits that reading of Annexure-1 with Annexure-2 which is the acceptance letter of the resignation of petitioner from HEC would demonstrate that petitioner voluntarily resigned from HEC and accepted a fresh appointment under respondent IDPL for a better career option with a new opening. It is not a case where petitioner was allowed to move from one Public Sector Undertaking to another Public Sector Undertaking with due consent of the two Undertakings. Counsel for the respondents also submits that provision of Appendix-11 of he CCS (Pension) Rules are not applicable to petitioner since the same envisages a situation where a Central Government employee is allowed to go on deputation or be absorbed as such on immediate basis under a Public Sector Undertaking. 6. The submissions made on behalf of respondents does not seem to be misplaced because a bare perusal of Annexures-1 and 2 would show that petitioner had voluntarily resigned his services from HEC and taken a fresh appointment under IDPL there is nothing to indicate in the offer letter contained in Annexure-1 to show that IDPL in any manner recognised his past service under HEC for any benefit whatsoever under them. Even acceptance letter of resignation contained in Annexure-2 of HEC also does not show that they had consented and allowed petitioner to join the new organisation with their consent and concurrence. It is also true that provisions of Appendix-11 indicated above talks about Central Government employees who go on deputation to a Public Sector Undertaking and absorption thereafter on a permanent basis. In any view of the matter, it cannot be the case of petitioner that he is covered by the CCS (Pension) Rules even though he was an employee under a Public Sector Undertaking, namely, HEC. 7. This being the factual and legal position, this Court is of the opinion that respondents IDPL have committed no wrong when they have refused to take into consideration the past service of petitioner under HEC while working out liabilities under the voluntary retirement scheme of IDPL. 8. The writ application is accordingly dismissed as being devoid of any merit.