advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Service matter - after resignation from BDO he joined as Lecturer and retired as Asst. Professor - Govt. issued G.O. to count previous government service while fixing pension - but not done - writ - High court negatived - Apex court held that In view of the provisions of Rule 48 read with Government Resolution dated 11.3.1992, we hold that the appellant is entitled for counting the service earlier rendered between 21.06.1950 to 17.07.1960 for determination of pension. The High Court failed to notice the relevant provisions and wrongly held that the appellant is not entitled to get the benefits of his past services in view of Rule 46(1) of the Rules, 1982, which is not applicable in the case of the appellant. The High Court also erred in rejecting the claim on the ground of delay and failed to notice that the cause of action for grant of pension arises every month. In the present case what we find is that the appellant made representation at an appropriate stage and such request was accepted by respondent No.4, the Administrative Officer, Higher Education, Nagpur who recommended respondent No.5, the Senior Accounts Officer, Accountant General-II, Maharashtra to count the period and to take into consideration the fact that the appellant has rendered more than 33 years of service. Even the Joint Director - by his letter dated 30.12.2005 recommended to respondent No.2, Director, Higher and Technical Education, Pune to count the period from 21.06.1950 to 18.07.1960. Thereby, the appellant also explained the delay in moving the High Court.= MADHUKAR … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41406

Service matter - after resignation  from BDO  he joined as Lecturer and retired as Asst. Professor - Govt. issued G.O. to count previous government service while fixing pension - but not done - writ - High court negatived - Apex court held that In  view  of  the  provisions  of  Rule  48  read  with  Government Resolution dated 11.3.1992, we hold  that  the  appellant  is  entitled  for counting the service earlier rendered between 21.06.1950 to  17.07.1960  for determination of pension. The High  Court  failed  to  notice  the  relevant provisions and wrongly held that the appellant is not entitled  to  get  the benefits of his past services in view of Rule  46(1)  of  the  Rules,  1982, which is not applicable in the case of the appellant.  The High  Court  also erred in rejecting the claim on the ground of delay  and  failed  to  notice that the cause of action for grant of pension arises  every  month.  In  the present case what we find is that the appellant made  representation  at  an
appropriate stage and such request was  accepted  by  respondent  No.4,  the Administrative Officer, Higher Education, Nagpur who recommended  respondent No.5, the Senior Accounts Officer, Accountant  General-II,  Maharashtra  to count the period and to take into consideration the fact that the  appellant has rendered more than 33 years of service.  Even the Joint Director -
by his letter dated 30.12.2005 recommended  to  respondent  No.2,  Director, Higher and Technical Education, Pune to count the period from 21.06.1950  to 18.07.1960.  Thereby, the appellant also explained the delay in  moving  the High Court.=

High  Court  refused
to grant pension to the appellant and dismissed  the  writ  petition.  Apart
from the ground of delay, the High Court dismissed the case on merit on  the
ground that the resignation in the previous  service  was  not  tendered  by
appellant with prior permission.=
 The resignation was  accepted  on  18.07.1960
by the Block  Development  Officer  and  it  was  forwarded  to  the  Deputy
Director of Education.  After  its  acceptance,  on  18.07.1960,  he  joined
Hislop College, Nagpur as Lecturer in absence of any refusal  of  letter  of
resignation .
 The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)  Rules,  1982  (hereinafter
referred to as, “the Rules, 1982”) were not applicable to the  teaching  and
non-teaching employees of the colleges. On -
24.5.1983,  the  appellant  retired  from  service  as  Assistant  Professor
(Marathi) from Hislop College, Nagpur.  In between 1983 and 1986 pension  of
the  appellant  was  finalized  but  the  service  of   the  appellant  from
21.6.1950  to 18.7.1960 was not counted.
The Government  of  Maharashtra  by
Government  Resolution  No.NGC  1284/106150/  994/84)/VS-4  dated  11.3.1992
decided to count past government  service  for  computation  of  pension  in
respect of all employees retiring on or after 1.10.1982.  In  view  of  such
Resolution, though the appellant was  entitled  to  get  his  past  services
counted for fixation  of  pension,  the  same  were  not  considered. =
 In the case of the appellant, there is notional  break  in  service.
He resigned from the Government service on 18.07.1960 and  joined  the  post
of Lecturer in Hislop College, Nagpur  on  the  same  day  i.e.  18.07.1960.
Further, higher authorities have recommended to add -
the earlier period of  service  for  determination  of  pensionary  benefit.
Being so,  in absence of  a  specific  direction  to  the  contrary  in  the
service record,  the interruption between two spells of service rendered  by
the appellant  under  the  Government  shall  be  treated  as  automatically
condoned; the earlier  service  rendered  by  appellant  is  to  be  counted
towards  qualifying service.
14.      In  view  of  the  provisions  of  Rule  48  read  with  Government
Resolution dated 11.3.1992, we hold  that  the  appellant  is  entitled  for
counting the service earlier rendered between 21.06.1950 to  17.07.1960  for
determination of pension. The High  Court  failed  to  notice  the  relevant
provisions and wrongly held that the appellant is not entitled  to  get  the
benefits of his past services in view of Rule  46(1)  of  the  Rules,  1982,
which is not applicable in the case of the appellant.  The High  Court  also
erred in rejecting the claim on the ground of delay  and  failed  to  notice
that the cause of action for grant of pension arises  every  month.  In  the
present case what we find is that the appellant made  representation  at  an
appropriate stage and such request was  accepted  by  respondent  No.4,  the
Administrative Officer, Higher Education, Nagpur who recommended  respondent
No.5, the Senior Accounts Officer,  Accountant  General-II,  Maharashtra  to
count the period and to take into consideration the fact that the  appellant
has rendered more than 33 years of service.  Even the Joint Director -
by his letter dated 30.12.2005 recommended  to  respondent  No.2,  Director,
Higher and Technical Education, Pune to count the period from 21.06.1950  to
18.07.1960.  Thereby, the appellant also explained the delay in  moving  the
High Court.
15.     For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the  impugned  judgment  and
order dated 23.04.2012 passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  High  Court  of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and  direct  the  respondents  to
count the period of service rendered by the  appellant  from  21.06.1950  to
18.07.1960  for  the  purpose  of  computation  of  pension  and   pay   the
consequential benefits including arrears  of  pension  within  three  months
from the date of this  judgment.   On  failure,  the  respondents  shall  be
liable to pay interest @ of  8%   from  the  date  of  filing  of  the  writ
petition till the amount is paid.
16.     The appeal is allowed with aforesaid  observations  and  directions.
No costs.

2014 judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41406

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, KURIAN JOSEPH


                                                               REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4470   OF 2014
                  (arising out of SLP(C)No. 32091 of 2012)

MADHUKAR                                                 … APPELLANT

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.                     … RESPONDENTS

                               J U D G M E N T

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.


        Leave granted.
2.      This  appeal  has  been  preferred  by  the  appellant  against  the
judgment and order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the  Division  Bench  of  High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur  in  Writ  Petition  No.
4736 of 2011.  By the impugned judgment and order, the  High  Court  refused
to grant pension to the appellant and dismissed  the  writ  petition.  Apart
from the ground of delay, the High Court dismissed the case on merit on  the
ground that the resignation in the previous  service  was  not  tendered  by
appellant with prior permission.
-
3.      The appellant was appointed on 21.6.1950 in the Food  Department  at
Dongargaon in District of Durg; the then ‘Madhya  Prant  Warhad  State’  and
worked till 20.12.1954.  Thereafter, he was appointed as  Assistant  Master,
Upper Division in Normal School at Kondagaon, District  Jagdalpur  where  he
functioned  between  22.12.1954  and  19.8.1956.   Since  his   posting   on
20.8.1956 he worked as Assistant Direct Inspector of  School,  Nagpur  where
he continued upto 9.10.1956. Thereafter, he was  posted  as  Superintendant,
Chokhamela  Hostel,  Nagpur  from   10.10.1956   to   26.06.1957.    Between
29.06.1957 and 30.04.1958 he  underwent  B.T.  Training  at  Akola  held  by
Education   Department.    Thereafter,   the   appellant   was   posted   as
Superintendent, Government Chokhamela Hostel, Nagpur on  1.5.1958  where  he
continued up to 10.12.1958.  He was posted as Social Education Organiser  at
Mauda, District Nagpur between 11.12.1958 to 17.7.1960  when he  tendered  a
resignation from the service.  The resignation was  accepted  on  18.07.1960
by the Block  Development  Officer  and  it  was  forwarded  to  the  Deputy
Director of Education.  After  its  acceptance,  on  18.07.1960,  he  joined
Hislop College, Nagpur as Lecturer in absence of any refusal  of  letter  of
resignation .
4.      The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)  Rules,  1982  (hereinafter
referred to as, “the Rules, 1982”) were not applicable to the  teaching  and
non-teaching employees of the colleges. On -
24.5.1983,  the  appellant  retired  from  service  as  Assistant  Professor
(Marathi) from Hislop College, Nagpur.  In between 1983 and 1986 pension  of
the  appellant  was  finalized  but  the  service  of   the  appellant  from
21.6.1950  to 18.7.1960 was not counted. The Government  of  Maharashtra  by
Government  Resolution  No.NGC  1284/106150/  994/84)/VS-4  dated  11.3.1992
decided to count past government  service  for  computation  of  pension  in
respect of all employees retiring on or after 1.10.1982.  In  view  of  such
Resolution, though the appellant was  entitled  to  get  his  past  services
counted for fixation  of  pension,  the  same  were  not  considered.  Being
aggrieved, the appellant made representations  followed  by  reminder  dated
10.2.2000. On  30.11.2005,  respondent  No.4,  the  Administrative  Officer,
Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur recommended the appellant’s  claim
for refixation of pension to the respondent No.5, Senior  Accounts  Officer,
Accountant  General-II,  Nagpur,  Maharashtra.   Respondent  No.5  in   turn
rejected  the  said  recommendation.   On  a  representation  made  by   the
appellant, the Joint Director  by  his  letter  dated  30.12.2005  requested
respondent No.2, the Director, Higher and Technical Education, Pune to  take
into consideration the services rendered by the appellant between  21.6.1950
and 18.7.1960 for computation of pension in view  of  Government  Resolution
dated 11.03.1992.  In spite of such recommendation made by the Joint -
Director, no action was  taken.   The  appellant  then  preferred  the  writ
petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned  judgment
and order dated 23.04.2012.
5.      Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Rule  48(3)  of
the Rules, 1982 and submitted that an interruption between  two  spells  one
rendered under the Government and other under the College should be  treated
as automatically condoned.  Further, according  to  him,  the  appellant  is
entitled for counting the earlier period from 21.06.1950 to  18.07.1960  for
re-fixation of pension in terms of Government Resolution dated 11.3.1992.
6.      On the other hand, according to respondents as  per  Rule  46(1)  of
the Rules, 1982 the service  of  the  appellant  prior  to  19.07.1960  were
liable to be forfeited; as resignation entails forfeiture of past service.
7.      In the case in hand, the appellant has claimed fixation  of  pension
by counting the earlier  period  of  service  in  the  light  of  Government
Resolution dated 11.3.1992.  No such claim has been made under Rules,  1982.

8.      The Government of Maharashtra, from  its  Education  and  Employment
Department issued Resolution  dated  11.3.1992.  Referring  to  its  earlier
Resolution No. NGC 1283/(865) vs-4 dated  21.7.1983  it  was  infomred  that
pension scheme shall also be made -
applicable  to  teaching  and  non-teaching  employees  in  non-agricultural
universities and non-government colleges affiliated to  it  from  1.10.1982.
For calculation  of  qualifying  service  under  the  said  Resolution,  the
services rendered in grant-in-aid non-government  colleges/higher  secondary
schools/secondary schools are also to be taken into account.  In  case,  the
employee  working  on  the  post  of  Lecturer/Professor  in  the   colleges
affiliated  to  it  has  accepted   the   appointment   on   the   post   of
Lecturer/Professor in Government service, in that event, his service on  the
post  of  Lecturer/Professor  in  non-agricultural  Universities  and   non-
government colleges affiliated to the Universities are  to  be  counted  for
determination of pension under  Government  Resolution  No.  SCT-1584/(1567)
Admn.-2 dated 17.10.1986.
        Considering the above aspects, the Government  by  resolution  dated
11.3.1992 decided as follows:

      “3).       Now the government issues  the  Order  that,  the  previous
      services  of  teaching/non-teaching  employees  retiring   from   non-
      agricultural universities and grant-in-aid  non-government  affiliated
      colleges rendered on any of post in government service, to  which  the
      Government Pension Scheme is applicable, may be taken into account for
      the purpose of pension.   Moreover,  previous  services  of  employees
      retiring from government posts to which the Government Pension  Scheme
      is applicable, rendered in  on  teaching/non-teaching  posts  in  non-
      agricultural universities  and  grant-in-aid  non-government  colleges
      affiliated to it, may  be  taken  into  account  for  the  purpose  of
      pension. This Order will be applicable to the  employees  retiring  on
      and after 1.10.1982.  However, the  benefit  of  previous  service  by
      condoning break in service will -
      be granted only if there is compliance of Conditions contained in Rule
      48(1) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.”

        From the bare reading of  the  Resolution  dated  11.3.1992,  it  is
clear that the Resolution is applicable to  the  employees  retiring  on  or
after 1.10.1982.
9.      Admittedly,  the  appellant  retired  from  the  Hislop  College  on
24.05.1983 i.e. after 1.10.1982; therefore, the  appellant  is  entitled  to
the benefits in terms of Resolution dated 11.3.1992.
10.     Rule 46 of the Rules, 1982  relates  to  forfeiture  of  service  on
resignation.  Under Rule  46(1)  “resignation  from  a  service  or  a  post
entails forfeiture of past services”.  Sub rule (4) of Rule  46  deals  with
the cases  where  the  resignation  shall  not  entail  forfeiture  of  past
services.  But the said Rule 46 is not applicable to  the  appellant  as  he
neither claimed the benefit of pension under the said Rules nor he was  paid
pension in terms of the said Rules.
11.     As per paragraph 3 of Resolution dated  11.03.1992  the  benefit  of
previous service by condoning break in service can be granted only if  there
is compliance of conditions contained in Rule  48(1)  of  the  Rules,  1982,
which reads as follows:-
       “48.     Condonation of interruption in  service.-(1)The  appointing
       authority may, by order, condone interruptions in the service  of  a
       Government servant:


       Provided that-


            a) -
            b) the interruptions have been caused  by  reasons  beyond  the
               control of the Government servant;


            c) the total service pensionary benefit  in  respect  of  which
               will  be  lost,  is  not  less  than  five  years  duration,
               excluding one or two interruptions, if any; and


            d) the interruption including two  or  more  interruptions,  if
               any, does not exceed one year.


       (2) The period of interruption condoned under sub-rule (1) shall not
       count as qualifying service.


       (3) In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary  in  the
       service record, an interruption between two spells of civil  service
       rendered by a Government servant under Government, shall be  treated
       as automatically condoned and the pre-interruption  service  treated
       as qualifying service.


       (4) Nothing in sub-rule (3) shall apply to  interruption  caused  by
       resignation, dismissal or removal from service or for  participation
       in a strike.


       (5) The period of interruption referred to in sub-rule (3) shall not
       count as qualifying service.”

12.     As per Rule 48 (3) in the absence of a specific  indication  to  the
contrary in the service record, an interruption between two spells of  civil
service rendered by a Government servant under Government, shall be  treated
as automatically condoned and the pre-interruption services  to  be  treated
as qualifying service.
13.     In the case of the appellant, there is notional  break  in  service.
He resigned from the Government service on 18.07.1960 and  joined  the  post
of Lecturer in Hislop College, Nagpur  on  the  same  day  i.e.  18.07.1960.
Further, higher authorities have recommended to add -
the earlier period of  service  for  determination  of  pensionary  benefit.
Being so,  in absence of  a  specific  direction  to  the  contrary  in  the
service record,  the interruption between two spells of service rendered  by
the appellant  under  the  Government  shall  be  treated  as  automatically
condoned; the earlier  service  rendered  by  appellant  is  to  be  counted
towards  qualifying service.
14.      In  view  of  the  provisions  of  Rule  48  read  with  Government
Resolution dated 11.3.1992, we hold  that  the  appellant  is  entitled  for
counting the service earlier rendered between 21.06.1950 to  17.07.1960  for
determination of pension. The High  Court  failed  to  notice  the  relevant
provisions and wrongly held that the appellant is not entitled  to  get  the
benefits of his past services in view of Rule  46(1)  of  the  Rules,  1982,
which is not applicable in the case of the appellant.  The High  Court  also
erred in rejecting the claim on the ground of delay  and  failed  to  notice
that the cause of action for grant of pension arises  every  month.  In  the
present case what we find is that the appellant made  representation  at  an
appropriate stage and such request was  accepted  by  respondent  No.4,  the
Administrative Officer, Higher Education, Nagpur who recommended  respondent
No.5, the Senior Accounts Officer,  Accountant  General-II,  Maharashtra  to
count the period and to take into consideration the fact that the  appellant
has rendered more than 33 years of service.  Even the Joint Director -
by his letter dated 30.12.2005 recommended  to  respondent  No.2,  Director,
Higher and Technical Education, Pune to count the period from 21.06.1950  to
18.07.1960.  Thereby, the appellant also explained the delay in  moving  the
High Court.
15.     For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the  impugned  judgment  and
order dated 23.04.2012 passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  High  Court  of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and  direct  the  respondents  to
count the period of service rendered by the  appellant  from  21.06.1950  to
18.07.1960  for  the  purpose  of  computation  of  pension  and   pay   the
consequential benefits including arrears  of  pension  within  three  months
from the date of this  judgment.   On  failure,  the  respondents  shall  be
liable to pay interest @ of  8%   from  the  date  of  filing  of  the  writ
petition till the amount is paid.
16.     The appeal is allowed with aforesaid  observations  and  directions.
No costs.


                                                      ………………………………………………….J.
                                          (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)






                                                      ………………………………………………….J.
                                                (KURIAN JOSEPH)




NEW DELHI,
APRIL 11, 2014.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.