Gangaram Visaram Joshi vs Superintendent of Post Office and Others

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. Mahendra Vora for the petitioner. Learned advocate invited the attention of the Court to three judgments of the Madras High Court, one of which was carried to the Hon''ble the Apex Court, and one decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. In all these cases, the Courts have taken the view that for a very short time if the service falls short of the qualifying service for pension, the same is required to be condoned and pension is required to be granted. On perusal of papers, it is noticed that what has weighed with the Courts (the Madras High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court), and to an extent with the Hon''ble the Apex Court, is the service put in by every individual as EDA (Extra Departmental Agent).

1.1 Present is the case wherein the petitioner put in 29 years of service as EDA and thereafter he was absorbed as Class-D employee wherein he put in 9 years, 7 months and 13 days of service before he attained the age of superannuation. Pension is denied to him because he has not completed 10 years of service. On the face of it, the order of non-grant of pension sounds harsh and the decision of the CAT is found more harsh than the decision of the Department. Every case which is cited before us was filed before the Hon''ble CAT and then it was carried before the concerned High Court. In light of those decisions, the judgment and order impugned in this matter is required to be considered.

RULE. Learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena waives service of Rule.

The very fact that the petitioner before this Court had put in 29 years of service as EDA and thereafter he has put in 9 years, 7 months and 13 days of service as Class-D employee, the Department of its own, or in any case the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, ought to have held him eligible for grant of pension. In a case, to which our attention is drawn, is a case in Original Application No. 1264 of 2001 filed before the CAT, Madras Bench which was decided by judgment and order dated 18.4.2002. This judgment and order was carried before the Madras High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 45465 of 2002 and Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition No. 66391 of 2002. The same came to be dismissed by the Madras High Court which observed that:

After going through the entire materials placed on record, we are of the view that once the rule making authority has considered it appropriate to treat fraction of a year equal to three months and above as a completed one half year while calculating the length of qualifying service, considering the total length of service put in by the first respondent, we are of the view that it is nothing serious if the first respondent''s service, which is short of just three months, is treated as a qualifying twenty half year service, so as to extend the pro rata pensionary benefits to him, which has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal in the order dated 18.4.2002 in O.A. No. 1264 of 2001 filed by the first respondent. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the said considered order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly it is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the relief granted in this writ petition is confined only to the case of the first respondent, which should not be treated as a precedent for others to follow. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also closed. No costs.

2.1 This order of the Madras High Court was subject-matter of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC-13829/2008 and the same was disposed of by order dated 17.10.2008, which reads as under:

Delay condoned. The SLP is dismissed. However, the question of law is left open to be decided by appropriate Court in appropriate case....

2.2 There are other cases which are decided by the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 22833 of 2010 & Misc. Petition No. 1 of 2010. There again, the Court was pleased to observe, as under:

In view of the above, we consider it appropriate to extend the benefit of the order in W.P. No. 45465 of 2002 to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to take into consideration the service of nine years, six months and thirteen days rendered by the petition as qualifying service for pension, treating it as 10 years service and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order....

In another case, the Madras High Court, in Writ Petition No. 8501 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011, was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the Union of India by observing in as under:

After going through the entire materials placed on record, we are of the view that once the rule making authority has considered it appropriate to treat fraction of a year equal to three months and above as a completed one half year while calculating the length of qualifying service, considering the total length of service put in by the first respondent, we are of the view that it is nothing serious if the first respondent''s service, which is short of just three months, is treated as a qualifying twenty half year service, so as to extend the pro-rata pensionary benefits to him, which has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal in the order dated 31.01.2011 in O.A. No. 798 of 2010 filed by the first respondent. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the said considered order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly it is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

In a similar case, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in CWP No. 18138-CAT of 2005 decided on 22.2.2011, was pleased to allow the petition and direct, as under: 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition succeeds to the extent that the order of the learned Tribunal is set aside by holding that the petitioner would be deemed to have eligible service to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the 1972 Rules and the period of 9 years 8 months and 23 days has to be treated as 10 years in fact. The respondents are directed to calculate the pension and gratuity and pay the same to the widow of the petitioner who is stated to have died on 30.04.2007 during the pendency of the present writ petition, within a period of three months....

In view of the aforesaid decisions, which learned advocate Mr. Meena could not dislodge, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench is required to be quashed and set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to pay the proportionate pension to the petitioner herein on the basis of the service put in by him with the Department. The payment shall be made as early as possible, but not later than six months from today. Rule is made absolute, with no order as to costs.