THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES, ABMEDABAD AND ORS. versus V.G. DESAI AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1132 · Decided: 01-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES, 
ABMEDABAD AND ORS. 
v. 
V.G. DESAI AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 1, 1996 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 136--Appeal by special leave:-
Scope:-Jurisdiction to interfere with orders of Central Administrative 
Tribunal-Court does not inteifere on individual disputes-When pensionary 
benefits granted to an employee which were not available to him in law-Mat-
ter calls for inteiference of this Court under Art. 136. 
Service Law-Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules,_ 1972-Rule 48(A) 
inserted by notification dated 28.11.1979 w.e.f 26.8.1977-Whether under 1972 
Rules pension is payable under Rule 48-A even if employee is treated as 
having retired on 1.6.1972-Held, No. 
Respondent No. 1 appointed as Telephone Operator in the 
Telephone department of the Government of India was promoted as In-
spector. He was transferred but he did not join at the place of posting and 
remained on leave. He sought further extension of leave and also retire-
ment on medical grounds with immediate.effect. Since a vigilance case was 
pending against him, the request of resignation was not accepted. In the 
departmental proceedings taken against him the punishment of censure 
was imposed. The respondent sent another letter requesting that his 
retirement could be settled and his G.P.F. be released. Since no action was 
taken, he filed a writ petition in the High Court which was transferred to 
the Central Administrative Tribunal. Allowing the application, the 
Tribunal by its order dated 30.11.1987 directed the authorities to decide 
the qnestion of releasing GPF leave salary and other dues of the petitioner 
within a period of two months that an interest of 9% should be payable on 
such dues from 20.4.1972 and payment of does should be effected within 
three months. The respondent was paid the dues including the amount 
lying in his GPF account alongwith interest @9%. The claim of the respon-
dent for pension was, however, not accepted on the ground that he was not 
entitled to pensionary benefits as per the rules. The respondent filed 
1132 
I 
~ . 
• 
... 
" 
'" 
' 
( 
- ' 
• 
,,< 
'.-
, 
, 
' 
' 
GEN. MANAGER, TELEPHONES v. V.G. DESAI 
1133 
another application seeking the relief that a declaration might be given A 
that he was entitled to pensionary benefits on and from 20.3.1972 or from 
the date of application made for voluntary retirement on 25.9.1971. In the 
alternative he sought a declaration that he was entitled to pensionary 
benefits on voluntary retirement as per the Central Civil Service (Pension) 
Rules, 1972 or, in the alternative, for a declaration that he was entitled to 
pensionary benefits of retirement by supernnuation. The Tribunal rejected 
the Claim while holding that the respondent could not be granted invalid 
pension under CSR 441 because no documentary evidence was produced 
by him to show that he was incapacitated from rendering public service 
B 
and the medical certificate produced by him did not declare him unfit for 
ever and directed the appellants to fix the pension of the respondent under C 
Rule 48-A of the 1972 Rules as if he had retired on 1.6.1972 on the basis 
of his qualifying service that might be calculated upto that date. The 
appellants submitted a Review application on the ground that Rule 48-A 
was not in operation on 1.6.1972 but had been inserted by notification 
dated 28.11.1978 w.e.f. 26.8.1977. The review application was dismissed as D 
barred by limitation as well as on the ground that the judgment did not 
suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. These appeals 
had been filed against the judgments of the Tribunal. 
The question raised for determination were : (i) whether the direc-
tion to treat the respondent as having retired from service from 1.6.1972 E 
was in consonance with the earlier judgment of the Tribunal dated 
30.11.1987; and (ii) whether under the 1972 Rules pension is payable even 
if the respondent is treated as having retired on 1.6.1972. The respondent 
submitted that since the offer of the respondent for voluntary retirement 
was not accepted by the competent authority he should be treated to have 
F 
continued in service till he attained the age of superannuation in 1987 and 
he was entitled to pension and that as in the present case involving an 
individual employee since substantial justice had been done by the 
Tribunal by directing payment of pension it was not a

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