Surjit Singh vs Central Adminsitrative Tribunal and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court by challenging order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure P. 14) passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity the Tribunal'') in O.A. No. 479/Pb.2007. The prayer of the petitioner for

quashing order dated 5.7.2001 removing him from service, which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal has been declined and the

subsequent orders dated 2.5.2006 and 3.2.2007 declining the request of the petitioner to join his duty on any suitable post of equal pay scale or in

the alternative to allow him pension by treating the period of his illness as qualifying service have also been rejected.

Facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as Diesel Fitter on 1.6.1991. He has been suffering from mental disorder and psychiatric

disease since 1995 for which he has been treated. He was served with a charge sheet for remaining absent from duty without any sanctioned leave.

On the basis of ex-parte enquiry penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him vide order dated 6.7.2001. On a revision petition filed by

him the penalty of removal from service was reduced to that of compulsory retirement on 2.5.2006. He claimed pension and pensionaly benefits by

arguing that compulsory retirement does not result in forfeiture of qualifying service. The Tribunal after considering rival contentions has concluded

that his total service comes to slightly more than 10 years. However, he remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 4 years 4 months and 17

days. He did not produce any medical certificate in respect of the period he remained absent. On the basis of Rule 14(x) of the Railway Service

(Pension) Rules, 1993 (for brevity ''the Rules'') the period of unauthorized absence has been treated as non qualifying period for pension and there

are it has been found that the petitioner did not have sufficient period of qualifying service to entitle him to claim pension.

We have heard learned Counsel at a considerable length and find that Rule 14(x) of the Rules does not leave any manner of doubt with regard

to forfeiture of period in respect of which an employee has remained absent from duty unauthorisedly. The relevant portion reads thus:

Periods which shall not be treated as service for pensionary benefits. Periods of employment in any of the following capacities shall not

constitute service for pensionary benefits, namely.

(i) to (ix) xx xx xx xx

(x) period of unauthorized absence in continuation of authorized joining time or in continuation of authorized leave of absence treated as overstay.

A perusal of the afore-mentioned rules put the controversy beyond any doubt. The rules provide that period of employment in various

eventualities is not to constitute service for pensionary benefits. One such eventuality is the period of unauthorized absence in continuation of

authorized joining time or in continuation of authorized leave of absence treated as overstay. It has come on record that the petitioner has rendered

service to the respondents from 1.6.1991 to 6.7.2001 and he was removed from service thereafter. Out of the afore-mentioned period the

petitioner remained absent from duty as there are categorical findings that his unauthorized absence was for a period of 4 years 4 months and 17

days. He is left with only qualifying service of 5 years 8 months and 15 days which would not entitle him to claim pension. Moreover, the excuse of

illness has not been proved by producing any medical certificate.

(Therefore, we are of the considered view that no interference of this Court is warranted in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is

wholly without merit and does not warrant admission.

As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Sd/- Jora Singh, J.