LexR.L. MARWAHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B R.L. MARWAHA. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. AUGUST 12, 1987 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] Pensionary benefits to Central Government employees perma- nently absorbed in Central autonomous bodies and vice versa- Counting of service rendered prior to such absorption for computing qualifying service for purposes of pension-Applicability of Central C Government order dated 29th August, 1984 to persons who retired from service prior to that date. The petitioner who had served in a temporary capacity in a pen- sionable establishment of the Central Government for 3 years prior to D his absorption in an autonomous 1>00Y sponsored by tbe Central Government, retired from the service of that body in 1980, a'!d was not allowed to count his service under the Central Government for pur'- poses of pensionary benefits, since, according to the then existing orders, that benefit was confined only to such Central Governme<1t employees who were permanent at the time of their absorption in the E autonomous body. By an order dated 29th August, 1984, the Central Government decided inter alia that where a Central Government employee borne ilD a pensionable establishment is allowed to be absorbed in an autonomous body, the service rendered by him' under the Government shall be F allowed to be counted towards pension under the autonomous body ~ irrespective of whether the employee was temporary or permanent in Government, subject, however, to the condition that the pensionary benefits would accrue only if the temporary service is followed by con- firmation. In paragraph 7 of the said order it was stated that the order would take effect from the date of its issue. G H The petitioner questioned the validity of the condition imposed in ~ paragraph 7 of the order dated 29th, August, 1984 making it applicable only to such of the employees of the Government/autonomous bodies who retired from service after the date of the issue of the order. Allowing the petition, 928 ' - R.L. MARWAHA v. U.0.1. 929 HELD: Paragraph 7 of the Government order dated 29th A August, 1984 cannot be used against persons in the position of the petitioner to deny them the benefit of the past service for purposes of computing the pension. [936C-DJ 2. There has been a continuous mobility of personnel between Central Government departments and autonomous bodies both ways B and the Government thought that it would not be just to deprive an employee who is later on absorbed in the service of the autonomous body the benefit of the service rendered by him earlier in the Central Government for purposes of computation of pension and similarly the benefit of service rendered by an employee who is later on absorbed in the Central Government service the benefit of the service rendered by C him earlier in the autonomous body for purposes of computation of pension. If that was the object of issuing the Government Order dated 29th August, 1984, then the benefit of that order should be extended to all pensioners who had rendered service earlier in the Central Govern- ment or in the autonomous body as the case may be with effect from the date of the said Government order. [935A-C] D 3. Now let us take the case of a person who had rendered service under the Central Government between January 1, 1953 and July 1, 1955 but who has retired from service of an autonomous body in 1985. There is no dispute that such a person gets the benefit of the service put in by him under the Central Government for purposes of his pension. E But another pensioner who has put in service under the Central Government during the same period will not get similar concession if he has retired prior to the date of the Government order if Paragraph 7 of that order is applied to him. The result will be that whereas in the first case there is pensionary liability of the Central Government in the second case it does not exist although the period of service under the F Central Government is the same. The discrimination arises on account of the Government order. [93SC-E] 4. There is no substance in the plea that this concession being a new one it can only be prospective in operation and cannot be extended to employees who have already retired. It is true that it is prospective in G operation in the sense that the extra benefit can be claimed only after 29th August, 1984. But it certainly looks backward and takes into con- sideration the past
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.