THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH versus DR. K. NARAYANASWAMI AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 142 · Decided: 21-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC~ 
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH· 
v 
DR. K. NARAY..~NASWAMI AND ORS. 
B 
FEBRUARY 21, 1995 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Service Law 
C 
Central Civil Services (Pensionary) Rules, 197~: Rules 13.28. Pension· 
ary benefit-Qualifying service-Commencement of-Interruption in ser-
vice-Condonation of-Service rendered temporarily as Pool Officer under the 
control of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-Incumbent resigned 
from the Post-Later got substantive appointment under Government of 
India-Held, service rendered as Pool Officer cannot be counted towards 
D qualifying service as there was interruption between temporary service of 
respondent as Pool Officer and subsequent mbstantive appointment. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes. 
Rule of hannonious consuuction-Applicability of. 
The Government of India in consultation with the Council of Sden· 
tific and Industrial Research constituted a Pool for well qualified Scien· 
tists and technologis~_returning to the country from abroad. While in the 
Pool, they were temporarily attached to Government or semi-Government 
F institutions till their absorption on suitable posts· on permanent basis. 
Their conditions of service were regulated by the regulations were framed 
by the Council and till such regulations were framed, they were governed 
by the regulations applicable.t~ temporary Class-I Officers of the Council. 
Respondent No. 1 was appointed a as Pool Officer by letter dated 
G 7.4.1965 issued by the Council and was attached with. the Regional Re· 
search Laboratory of the Council Hyderabad. He resigned from the post 
on 5.3.1969 and joined as Assistant Director (Chemistry), Forensic Science 
Laboratory (CBI) on 10.6.1969. After serving in different departments of 
the Government of India he retired oli superannuation on 31.12.1992. He 
H filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for. a 
142 
' 
C.S.l.R. v. K. NARA YANASWAMI 
143 
direction that his service as Pool Officer rendered in the Council from A 
1.7.1965 to 5.3.1969 be counted for pensionary benefits, The Tribunal 
allowed the claim. Aggrieved, the Director of the Council filed the appeal 
by·special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the first proviso to Rule 13 of the Central Civil 
Services (Pensionary) Rules 1972, the service rendered by the respondent 
B 
as a Pool Officer cannot be counted towards qualifying service for the 
purpose of pensionary benefit, as there was interruption between the 
temporary service of the respondent as Pool Officer and the subsequent C 
substantive appointment. This interruption cannot be taken to have been 
condoned as envisaged by r.28 of the Rules. [146-D-G] 
1.2. Prior to substitution of the Rule 28 by Notification dated 
19.5.1980, a specific order of the appointing authority was a pre-requisite 
for condonation of interruptions, in the service of a government servant. D , 
Admittedly, there is no such order in the instant case. Secondly, even ifthe 
substituted Rule were to apply, because of the superannuation of the 
respondent in 1992, by which date substituted Rule had come into force, 
that rule cannot override the proviso to Rule 13. This is for the reason that 
any contrary view would make the proviso altogether otiose. [147-E] 
E 
1.3. It is a settled rule of interpretation that where two provisions 
operate in one field, both have to be allowed to have their play, unless such 
operation would result in patent inconsistency or absurdity. If Rule 28 
were to be confined to the interruption between two substantive appoint-
ments, both the provisions can co-exist, and harmoniously. Rule 13 being F 
on the subject of 'commencement' of qualifying service, the same has first 
to commence, which, because of the first proviso, would not, in any case 
the incumbent was in temporary service first and there was interruption 
between temporary service and substantive appointment. Where the 
qualifying service has commenced. Rule 28 would taice care of interruption; G 
and the period of interruption would then stand condoned in the absence 
of a specific indication to the contrary in the service book. This is the field 
of operation of these to Rules as the same would permit, in such case, both 
the provisions to co-eidst. [147-E-HJ 
Dr. M.C Anantha Padmanabha Setty v. Director, National Institute of H 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 2 S.C.R., 
A Oceanography, (1990) 14

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.