9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 953 (F.N.). He, having been appointed in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as 'the ICAR'), which is an autonomous body sponsored by the Central Government, to a higher post of Assistant in the scale of pay of ₹ 160-450 joined the service of the ICAR as a fresh entrant on the same date that is 23.11.1953 (F.N.). He was not allowed to carry forward the leave that he had earned and was declared quasi-permanent as an Assistant in the ICAR with effect from 17.1.1957. The post held by the petitioner under the Central Government before he entered the service of the ICAR was a pensionable post and the post or posts held by him in the ICAR were also pensionable posts. The petitioner retired from the service of the ICAR on September 30, 1980 after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years. On retirement the petitioner was accorded pensionary benefits reckoning his qualifying service from 23.11.1953 to 30.9.1980. The petitioner, as some others who had also retired from the service of the ICAR had been agitating before the authorities to count the period of service put in by him between 4.10.1950 and23.11. 1953 in the Central Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e combined service should be introduced. After a careful consideration of all relevant matters the Central Government passed an order being No. O.M. No. 28 10 84-Pension Unit dated 20th August, 1984 Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and issued it on 29.8. 1984. That part of the Government order which is relevant for purposes of this case is set out in Paragraph 3(A)(i) thereof and it is as follows: No. 28/10/84-Pension Unit Government of India Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs Grih Mantralaya Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Karmik Aur Prashasnik Sudhar Vibhag) New Delhi, the 29th August, 1984. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Mobility of personnel between Central Government Departments and Autonomous Bodies--Counting of service for pension. 3. This matter has been considered carefully and the President has now been pleased to decide that the cases of Central Government employees going over to a Central autonomous body or vice versa and employees of the Central autonomous body moving to another Central autonomous body may be regulated as per the following provisions: (A) In case of Autonomous bodies where pension ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the classification and the object to be achieved by the Government order. The writ petition is resisted by the respondents--the Union of India and the ICAR. It is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to count the period of service rendered by him under the Government of India as a part of his qualifying service for purposes of pension since he was only a temporary Government servant when he was working in the office of the Settlement Commissioner, that he had joined the service of the ICAR as a fresh entrant and that there was no Government policy which entitled the petitioner to count the period of his Government service as part of qualifying service for pension before the Government order dated 29.8.1984 was passed. The fact that the petitioner was a temporary Government servant when he was working in the Central Government is immaterial because the Government order itself says that the service rendered by a Central Government employee under the Government would be allowed to be counted towards pension under the autonomous body irrespective of whether the employee was temporary or permanent in Government provided he is later on confirmed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s retired prior to the date of the Government order if Paragraph 7 of that order is applied to him. The result will be that whereas in the first case there is pensionary liability of the Central Government in the second case it does not exist although the period of service under the Central Government is the same. This discrimination arises on account of the Government order. There is no justification for denying the benefit of the Governmentorder to those who had retired prior to the date on which the Government order was issued. The respondents have not furnished any acceptable reason in support of their case, except saying that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Government order because the order says that it would not be applicable to those who had retired prior to the date on which it was issued. In the absence of any explanation which is worthy of consideration it has to be held that the classification of the pensioners who were working in the Government/ autonomous bodies into two classes merely on the basis of the date of retirement as unconstitutional as it bears no nexus to the object to be achieved by the order. We do not also find much substance in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
