UNION OF INDIA versus K. B. KHARE AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 12-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN, M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
KB. KHARE AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 
{S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.) 
' 
Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions 
of Service of Chaimian, Vice-Chaimian and Members) Rules, 1985: 
A 
B 
Rule 8-Scope of~eld exhaustive in nature Rule 16--Scope and C 
applicability of. 
All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1985: Rule 
8(5~eld inapplicable to a member of Central Administrative Tribunal. 
CCS (Fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners) Order 1986--Ap-
D 
plicability of~eld inapplicable to a member of Central Administrative 
Tribunal. 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 : 
Section 35-R.ules framed under-Applicability of. 
E 
Service Law-Pension-Member of State Judicial Service-Appoint-
ment as Member of Central Administrative Tribunal-Pension-Clubbing of 
two services i.e. State Judicial Service and Member as Central Administrative 
Tribunal for consolidation of pension-Held not pemiissible-Appointment 
in Central Administrative Tribunal held not re-employment . in connection F 
with affairs of Union. 
Respondent-1, a District Judge in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial 
Service, was appointed as Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 
Before joining the Tribunal he sought voluntary retirement from the State 
service which was a requisite under Rule S of the Central Administrative G 
Trib1,mal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, 
Vice-Chairman· and Members) Rules 1985. As a member of the Tribunal, 
he sought an option for combining the two services viz. the State Judicial 
Service and Service as a member of the Tribunal in order to get con-
solidated pension as a member of the Tribunal. Alternatively, he requested H 
393 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
that his services in the Tribunal be added to the qualifying service for 
f1Xation of pension under Rule 8-A of the All India Service (Death-cu-
Retirement Benefit) Rules 1958 contending that it was permissible under 
Rule 16. Since his request was not acceded to, he filed a petition in the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court which was allowed holding that : (i) having 
B 
c 
regard to Rule 16 services rendered under the two services could be 
clubbed for the .purpose of pension; (ii) for construing the pension 
provision as far as possible the interpretation benevolent to the pensioners 
should be applied unless a contrary intention has been clearly expressed 
in the provision; (iii)had the respondent continued in the State Judicial 
Service he would have drawn a higher pension than what he was I>resently 
drawing; and (iv) inasmuch .as the respondent was a person re-employed 
on a post in connection with the affairs of the Union Government after 
retirement on pension from the services of the State Government he was 
entitled to get one consolidated pension by joining two services on the 
basis of CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Order 1986. 
D Against the decision of the High Court appeal was preferred in this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment of the High 
Court, this Court 
HELD : 1. The provisions of the Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985 
E and Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Con-
ditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 
. clearly establish that they do not envisage l~nking of past service with a 
service in the Tribunal which is a quasi-judiciai body. [ 402-H] 
F 
G 
2. The High Court has gone wrong in considering the service in 
Central Administrative Tribunal as re-employment in connection with the 
affairs of the Union. Since the first respondent is not a person re-employed 
on a post in connection with the affairs of Union Government, there is no 
scope whatever for applying Central Civil Service (Fixation of pay of re· 
employed pensioners) Order, 1986. (403-E, 404-C] 
3. The appointment in the CAT is on tenure basis. The pension 
relating to such a post is clearly governed by Rule 8 of the Rules which is 
exhaustive in nature. If that be so, there is no scope for resort to Rule 16 
at all. Consequently, it is difficult to accept the reasoning of the High Court 
that the matter of option to club the two services for pension is a subject 
H on which the Rules are silent and the residuary provision in Rule 16 of the 
U.0.1. v. K.B. KHARE [MOHAN, J.) 
395 
Rules intends to fill the gap by supplementing the Rules by rules ap-
A 
plicable to the Secretary to t

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