Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 744 (GAU)

Madanan K. v. Union of India

2008-09-30

I.A.ANSARI, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The material facts, which have given rise to this appeal, may be set out as under: By way of a writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Appellant herein had put to challenge the order, dated 14.2.1997, whereby the Appellant, while serving as Lance Naik in the Assam Rifles, had been discharged from service. By his said writ petition, the Appellant had also put to challenge the orders, dated 5.5.1999 and 14.9.2001, whereby his request for re-instatement in service or, in the alternative, to give him pensionary benefits had been rejected. 2. The case of the Appellant, in the writ petition, was, in brief, thus: While serving as Lance Naik in Assam Rifles, the Appellant, sometime in the month of February 1997, suffered from mental disorder. The Appellant underwent medical treatment and after becoming fit, sometime, in the year 1999, when the Appellant went to his Unit to join his duties he received the order, dated 14.2.1997, aforementioned, whereby he was shown to have been discharged from service with effect from 14.2.1997. The Appellant, having suffered from mental disorder, did not know really that he had been discharged from service until the time he was served with the order aforementioned, which reflected that the Appellant already stood discharged from service with effect from 14.2.1997. The representations, made by the Appellant for his re-instatement in service, or, in the alternative, to grant him pensionary benefits, were illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the authorities concerned. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order, dated 7.6.2007. While disposing of the writ petition, the specific finding, recorded in the writ petition, by the learned Single Judge was that the discharge of the Appellant was at his own request and on compassionate ground. In fact, the learned Single Judge also recorded that prior to his discharge from service, the Appellant was given counselling by the authority concerned impressing upon him the fact that he should not seek pre-mature retirement as the same would entail loss of pensionary benefits, but it was on the Appellant's insistence that the order, dated 14.2.1997, was passed discharging him from service. Because of the findings so reached, the learned Single Judge refused to grant the relief of re-instatement in service, which the Appellant had sought for. Because of the findings so reached, the learned Single Judge refused to grant the relief of re-instatement in service, which the Appellant had sought for. As regards the pensionary benefits, this Court, taking note of the statement, made on behalf of the Appellant, that the period of qualifying service, under Rule 48A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, had been reduced from 20 to 10 years, directed re-consideration of the claim of the Appellant for pensionary benefits. The penultimate directions, given in this regard, by the learned Single Judge, read as under: 11. Considering the above submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record, while not interfering with the orders passed by the Respondents, it is hereby provided that the Respondents may consider the case of the Petitioner as to whether, upon compassion, he can be provided with pensionary benefits for his service rendered by him. Needless to say that the case of the Petitioner wilt have to be considered as per rules. The Respondents may take a decision in the matter in accordance with rules as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 (three) months. 3. Pursuant to the directions, contained in the judgment and order, dated 7.6.2007, aforementioned, the Director General of Assam Rifles considered the matter and, having found that the Appellant had not put in requisite number of years in service was not entitled to any pensionary benefits, rejected the Appellant's request for pensionary benefits. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for pensionary benefits, the Appellant, once again, came to this Court by way of a writ petition and this writ petition gave rise to WP(C) No. 1818/2008. A learned Single Judge of this Court, on examining the matter, held that Rule 48-A, which the Appellant was relying upon to sustain his claim for pensionary benefits, was applicable to persons, who had rendered 10 years of service without being confirmed in any post or to persons, who after having rendered 10 years of service, were permanently incapacitated leading to cessation of service and since the Appellant did not fall under any of the said categories, he was not entitled to receive any pensionary benefits. Because of the conclusions, so reached, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order, dated 13.8.2007, whereby the Appellant's request for granting him pensionary benefits had been rejected by the Respondents/authorities concerned. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the Petitioner has, now, preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel, for the Appellant, and Mr. H. Rahman, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 6. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be noted is that the learned Single Judge's finding, rendered in WP(C) No. 2476/2002, to the effect that the Appellant had been discharged from service on his own request was never put to challenge and the same has, therefore, attained finality. It was in this backdrop that the Appellant's case was required to be considered for the purpose of determining the question as to whether the Appellant was entitled to the relief of pensionary benefits or not. 7. It has been submitted, on behalf of the/Appellant, that the Respondents ought to have considered the Appellant's case on compassion as had been directed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2476/2002. We notice that while directing the Respondents/authorities concerned to consider the Appellant's request for pensionary benefits, the learned Single Judge had made it clear that the Appellant's request for pensionary benefits shall be considered as per rules. 8. In the present case, when the unassailed finding of this Court is that the Appellant had been discharged on his own request and he had not put in 15 years of service, it is clear that the Appellant's case fall under Rule 23 of the said Rules. A person, whose case is covered by Rule 23, is, admittedly, not entitled to receive any pensionary benefits inasmuch as he has to put in 15 years of service, which was the required qualifying period of service. In the case at hand, since the Appellant had not put in the requisite number of years of service, he could not have been granted pensionary benefits under Rule 23. As far as Rule 48-A is concerned, the Appellant's case is not covered by this rule. Situated, thus, it is clear that the learned Single Judge had not erred in dismissing the writ petition, whereby the Petitioner had sought for direction to the Respondents/authorities concerned to grant him pensionary benefits. 9. As far as Rule 48-A is concerned, the Appellant's case is not covered by this rule. Situated, thus, it is clear that the learned Single Judge had not erred in dismissing the writ petition, whereby the Petitioner had sought for direction to the Respondents/authorities concerned to grant him pensionary benefits. 9. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 10. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.