Union of India (UOI) vs Shri Devendra Kumar Singh and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner, Union of India through Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat has challenged the order dated 6th May, 2009 passed in OA 1936/2008 titled Sh. Devendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi holding that the requirement of CCS (Pension) Rule 26 Sub-rule (2) are met and allowing the original application and setting aside the order dated 15th October, 2007 passed by the petitioner whereby the request of respondent No. 1 for counting the service in the office of Prasar Bharti & Doordarshan w.e.f. 1st May, 1990 to 4th October, 2003 was rejected.

The admitted facts are that the respondent No. 1 was working as a technical officer on direct recruitment basis w.e.f. 7th October, 2003 and he claimed the period of past service w.e.f. 1st May, 1990 to 4th October, 2003 be counted for all purposes. The plea of the respondent No. 1 was rejected on the ground that since his application had not been forwarded through proper channel, his past service could not be computed under the Rules.

The respondent No. 1 had applied for the post of technical officer in the Aviation Research Centre, Director General of security under the Cabinet Secretariat while working as an Engineering Assistant in the Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Gwalior. On his selection to the post of technical officer, the respondent No. 1 was relieved from Doordarshan on 4th October, 2003 and he joined his new position on 7th October, 2003, however, he was allowed a lien for two years on his previous post. The respondent No. 1 had sought counting of his past service on the plea that the service has been continuous throughout and and as he had been relieved properly and his resignation by Prasar Bharti and Doordarshan was in terms of CCS (Pension) Rule 26(2). The relevant Rule 26(2) CCS (Pension) Rules is as under:

(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of the respondent No. 1 does not fall within the purview of the exception clause of Rule 26(2) as it had not been made through proper channel with permission of the Controlling Authority.

The respondent No. 1 had admitted that the application was made by him directly and not routed through his erstwhile employer, however, according to respondent No. 1, it was on account of peculiar circumstances at that time as the respondent No. 1 had to apply within 15 days and he was undergoing training at IIT Kanpur as a sponsored candidate from Doordarshan and as only 5 to 6 days were left in the deadline and considering the postal delays, he had applied directly, however, the intimation was sent by him to his office at Gwalior immediately and a NOC (No Objection Certificate) was also requested. The request of the respondent No. 1 was responded by OM dated 6th September, 1999 asking the respondent No. 1 to give an undertaking regarding deposit of amount of Rs. 2 lacs as per the bond before leaving the present post.

The Tribunal had considered the pleas of the petitioners which has been raised before this Court also and has held that in view of clear Govt. of India instruction regarding exemption from payment of the sum undertaken in the bond, the response to the communication of the respondent No. 1 dated 6th September, 1999 would not negate the no objection communicated issued to respondent No. 1. Reliance has also been placed on the certificate dated 29th August, 2005 issued by Station Engineer certifying that respondent No. 1 had been working from August, 1990 to 7th December, 1999 and in view of the first respondent''s appointment in the Cabinet Secretariat, the office has no objection for the purpose of his continuity in the service.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refute that though the respondent No. 1 had submitted the application directly but there were bonafide circumstantial compulsion. This is also not disputed that the authorities were duly informed and the communication dated 6th September, 1999 issued by Station Engineer, DMC, Gwalior was a virtual NOC. If that be so, the learned Counsel has not been able to show how the requirement of CCS (Pension) Rule 26(2) are not met. There was no specific mention in the advertisement regarding the application of existing employees being routed through their employers only.

For the foregoing reasons and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 6th May, 2009 in OA No. 1936/2008 titled as Sh. Devendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India. No such illegality or irregularity has been pointed out which will require interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is dismissed. All the pending application are also disposed of.