LexNARESH KUMAR versus DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 627 NARESH KUMAR v. DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3138 of 2008) JULY 08, 2010 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) A B Service Law - Pension - Multiple pension options - Appellant opted for pro-rata pension - Later made representation seeking change in option and claiming C pension for combined service - Representation rejected by authorities - Writ petition filed by appellant - Dismissed on ground of unexplained delay and /aches, as well as on merits - Propriety of - Held: Proper- The relief claimed by appellant was misconceived and could not be granted on the facts of D the case - Moreover, appellant, without giving any explanation, approached the writ court long after his representation was rejected by the authorities - Delay I Lach es. Service Law - Settled practice - Challenge to - Held: E Normally the matters which are settled should not be permitted to be unsettled on the mere asking. The appellant served in the Indian Air Force for 15 years wthereafter he served the Department of Atomic F Energy (DAE) and later served the Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) as well. He had opted to receive pensionary benefits from the Air Force instead of comoined benefits of Civil and Military Pension. However, later he moved a representation before the authorities G concerned seeking change in option from pro-rata pension to pension for combined service put in by him both under DAE and NPC. The representation was rejected. The appellant made two more representations 627 H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 8 S.C.R. A for reconsideration of his grievance but they were also rejected. Subsequently, the appellant filed a writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to accept his 8 option for combined service pension. The petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of unexplained delay and laches, as also on merits. Dismissing the instant a11peal, the Court c HELD: 1.1. The appellant had served in the Air Force at the first phase of his employment whereafter he served DAE and in the third and last phase, he served the NPC. In the representation moved by the appellant, he had submitted that pension for combined service put in both D under DAE and NPC be granted to him by change in option and that he was willing to refund the amount of pro-rata pension paid to him. This representation came to be rejected in 1999 but still the appellant chose not to challenge the same and waited for considerable years. E The circular of 2001 (relied upon by the appellant) was applicable to re-employed pensioners, who opted for separate military and civil pension, and hardly had any bearing on the case of the appellant, who was claiming combining of the pension of DAE and the Corporation F none of them being the part of the military or Air Force service. [Para 7] [633-E-H; 634-A-D] 1.2. The respondents had circulated a booklet wherein it was specifically stated that whosoever opts for a monthly pro-rata pension would not be allowed to G commute any part of pro-rata pension either at the time of permanent absorption or at any time thereafter. According to the respondents, this practice has been uniformly followed till date and a large number of employees had exercised their option like the appellant. H There is substance in the plea of the respondents that the NARESH KUMAR v. DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC 629 ENERGY AND ORS. appellant having opted and taken benefit for all this A period cannot be permitted to alter the option and if his case is now accepted, it will cause tremendous administrative and financial problems for the NPC. It is true that normally the matters which are settled should not be permitted to be unsettled on the mere asking. B [Para 6] [632-G-H; 633-A-C] _ 1.3. The relief claimed by the appellant is misconceived and cannot be granted on the facts of the case. Merely because the case of the appellant was C forwarded by the Department for favourable consideration, would not vest any right in the appellant and can hardly be of any material consequence. If an employee keeps making representation after representation which are consistently rejected then the employee cannot claim any relief on that ground. The D High Court was not in error while dismissing the writ petition even on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. The representation of the appellant was rejecte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.