Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs Union of India  

ARUN D. UPADHYE, J

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

Shri S. A. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent has rendered only 9 years and 8 months service with the

Department and therefore, he is not eligible for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. He further submitted that the learned

Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur failed to appreciate that the respondent is not eligible for pension as he has not completed 10 years of

qualifying service. According to him, if respondent had completed 9 years and 9 months service, he could have received the benefit of Rule 49(3) of

the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly interpreted the Rule 49(3) and given benefit to the respondent

and held that the respondent has completed more than 10 years service and therefore, qualified for grant of pension. He, therefore, prayed that the

impugned Judgment of the Tribunal under challenge be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.

Shri R. D. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Tribunal has considered the facts as well as legal position in right

perspective and allowed Original Application filed by the respondent. No interference of this Court is called for in the impugned Judgment. He further

submitted that the respondent has completed qualifying service of 10 years and therefore, eligible for pension. The writ petition, therefore, be

dismissed.

Considering the submissions of both the sides and having gone through the Judgment dated 08/12/2016 passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view

that no interference of this Court is called for. The learned Tribunal has considered the provisions of Rule 49(3) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules and

came to the conclusion that the respondent has completed the service more than 10 years and entitled to get pension. The learned Tribunal has

observed that the respondent had already completed 9 years and 8 months service and adding six months to it as a fraction for remaining 4 months of

service, the same would come to more than 10 years. The learned Tribunal has interpreted the provisions of Rule 49(3) and given benefit of 6 months

to the respondent. We have perused the said provision of 49 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, which is reproduced below for ready reference.

“49 In the case of Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years,

the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service.

(2) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than

thirtyÂthree years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five

hundred rupees per mensum.

(b) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirtyÂthree

years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension shall be less than

Rupees Three hundred and seventyÂ​five per mensum.

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b), the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family pension

admissible under subÂ​rule (2) of Rule 54.

(3) In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half year and

reckoned as qualifying service.â€​

Considering the provisions of Rule 49(3) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, the petitioners were not justified to deny the claim of the respondent on the

ground that he falls short of four months service for minimum qualifying service of 10 years so as to become eligible for pension. The learned Tribunal

has set aside the order dated 01/07/2013 passed by the petitioners by allowing Original Application No.2128/2014 filed by the respondent. The learned

Tribunal has rightly interpreted the provisions of Rule 49 (3) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules and given benefit to the respondent by adding 6 months for

fraction of remaining 4 months less service. The submission put forth on behalf of petitioners that the Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the provisions

of Rule 49(3) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, therefore cannot be accepted.

Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon ruling in the case of Union of India Vrs. Sant Singh, reported in 2002 SCC OnÂLine

Del 869. In the above ruling, Their Lordships of Delhi High Court have held that in calculating the length of qualifying service fraction of a year equal

to 3 months and above is to be treated as completion of 6 months for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying service. Since fraction of a year equal to

3 months and above, is to be treated as half year of completed service, the respondent by application of the Rule must be deemed to have completed

10 years of service in the Rehabilitation Department for the purpose of computing the prorata pension.

Considering the above ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court which supports the case of respondent, therefore, the submission put forth on behalf of

the petitioners, cannot be accepted that he has not completed qualifying service.

After considering the submissions of both the sides, we are of the view that, there is no merit in the petition. The order passed by the Tribunal under

challenge will have to be confirmed and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, accordingly writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no

order as to costs.