Summary
The appellant retired in 1977 after putting in 23 years of service. But he was not given pension on the ground that throughout his service he was working on officiating basis and was never appointed substantively to any of the posts held by him. The appellant challenged the denial of pension to him before the Central Administrative Tribunal.The Tribunal held that since the appellant retired from service without holding lien on any substantive post, he was not entitled to pension under Rule 13 of the Central Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The application of the appellant was disposed of ex-parte by the Tribunal and his application for restoration and hearing was also rejected. Against these orders of the Tribunal appellant preferred the present appeals.
The Respondents contested the appeals on the ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend the appellant's confirmation since two departmental enquiries were initiated against him, resulting in deduction of Rs.4,000 from his gratuity, by way of punishment.Allowing the appeals, this Court,HELD: 1. Admittedly the findings in the two enquiries were never communicated to the appellant during the period of his service. Those were served on him only after retirement The question of his confirmation which was due in the year 1967 could not have been linked with the enquiries which were initiated at a much later stage. The Departmental Promotion Commit60 61tee should have considered the appellant for confirmation on the basis of the record of the appellant as existed in the year 1967/1968. There is no material on record to show that the service record of the appellant prior to 1970 was adverse in any manner. Even the Departmental Promotion Com- mittee found the confidential reports of the appellant for the last three years as good. On the availability of a permanent post of Chief of Police on June 14, 1967 the appellant was entitled to be confirmed against the said post. It was wholly arbitrary on the part of the respondents to have deferred the question of confirmation of the appellant on the ground that there were no Recruitment Rules. The appellant having served the respondents for about thirteen years, on June 14, 1967 when the post of Chief of Police was made permanent and there being nothing adverse against him at that point of time, he was entitled to be confirmed in the said post. In that view of the matter the appellant was a confirmed employee when he retired from service on July 31,1977. [63D-G]2. The respondents are directed to treat the appellant as having been retired as a confirmed employee and fix his pension and other post-retiral benefits on that basis. The respondents are further directed to complete the pension case of the appellant within three months and pay him all the arrears of the pension within two months thereafter alongwith 12% interest on the said arrears. [63H; 64A]See the full content of this document
Extract
Bhaskar Gajanan Kajrekar VS. Administrator, Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Ors.
PETITIONER: BHASKAR GAJANAN KAJREKAR Vs.RESPONDENT: ADMINISTRATOR, DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT23/02/1993BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J)BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J)YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)CITATION: 1993 SCR (2) 60 1993 SCC (3) 237JT 1993 Supl. 43 1993 SCALE (1)683ACT: Civil Services : Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Rule...
See the full content of this document