Parkash Chand vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—By means of the present petition, the Petitioner has sought mainly the following relief:

That the impugned order vide Annexure P-7 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and the Respondents No. 2 & 3 may kindly be ordered to grant pension along with service benefits to the Petitioner in civil suit by taking into consideration services rendered in the armed forces during an emergency period.

Heard and gone through the records of the case.

During China aggression in the year 1962, national emergency was declared. Petitioner was recruited on 8.11.1963 in the Army as Clerk Administration General Duty. He retired from the armed forces as Hawaldar on 30.11.1987. Petitioner was granted pension alongwith consequential retiral benefits. Thereafter, on 15.11.1995, he joined Rural Development Department of Himachal Pradesh at Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur as Panchayat Secretary, against reserved vacancy for the Ex-servicemen. He retired as such, after rendering 8 years, 8 months and 16 days service on the completion of 58 years. Had he completed 10 years of service, he would have been entitled for the civil pension as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Petitioner made representation to the Block Development Officer, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, contending that he being an Ex-serviceman recruited during the emergency period aforesaid, therefore, half of the military service rendered during his army service is to be added in service rendered in the civil employment, but his request was finally turned down by the Respondent-department vide Annexure P-7, on the ground that the Petitioner did not exercise his option to continue his military service, for pension benefits within one year from the date of his appointment in the Respondent-department.

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is relevant in this context, which reads as under:

Counting of military service rendered before civil employment:

(1) ...

(2) (a) The authority issuing the order of substantive appointment to a civil service or post as is referred to in Sub-rule (1) shall along with such order require in writing the Government servant to exercise the option under that sub-rule within three months of date of issue of such order, if he is on leave on that day, within three months of his return from leave, whichever is later and also bring to his notice the provisions of Clause(b).

(b) If No. option is exercised within the period referred to in Clause (a), the Government servant shall be deemed to have opted for Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1).

The bare perusal of the above provisions makes it clear that it is for the authority issuing the order of substantive appointment to a civil post to require in writing from the Government servant to exercise his option.

The service record of the Petitioner was also sent for and perused. Its perusal shows that the Respondent-department did not call for the Petitioner to exercise his option within the time as referred under the Rules, therefore, there was No. occasion for the Petitioner to exercise his option and thus the Respondent-department could not have rejected the request made by the Petitioner as per Annexure P-7 aforesaid, which is wrong and illegal and is accordingly set-aside.

As a consequence of the above, Respondent-department is hereby directed to call for the option from the Petitioner within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of this judgment and the Petitioner shall exercise his option within three months thereafter. On the receipt of the option from the Petitioner, the Respondent-department shall finalize the case of the Petitioner and accord the pension in accordance with rules within period of two months thereafter.

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any.