LexUNION OF INDIA versus S. DHARMALINGAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
v.
S. DHARMALINGAM
OCTOBER 28, 1993
B
{KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.)
Service Law :
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972:
C
Rules 3(q), 13, 26(2), 30(i}-Superannuation pension-Addition to
D
'qualifying service' in special circumstances-Eligibility-Held, benefit avail-
able to every Government servant appointed to a service of post refe"ed to in
r.30( 1) i"espective of his already being in Government service be/ ore such
appointment.
The respondent was employed as Investigator in the National
Sample Survey with effect from May 8, 1956. He continued on the said post
till 16-5-1960 when he was appointed to the post of Labour Officer, by way
Gf direct recruitment. The respondent retired from service in August 1985.
Though the period of service rendered by the respondent from May 8, 1956
E till May 16,1960 was included in his qualifying service, his claim to benefit
of addition in qualifying service under Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 was not accepted. He moved the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal, which allowed the claim.
In appeal before this Court, it was contended by the appellants that
F
Rule 30 was applicable only in cases where a person joined Government
service on the service or post referred to in the said rule and did not apply
. to a person who was already in Government service, and was appointed to
the service or post referred to in the rule; and if the benefit of the Rule is
extended to such a person he would avail double benefit in the matter of
G computation of his qualifying service, which was not envisaged by Rule 30.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Addition to qualifying service under sub-rule (1) of rule
30 of the Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is available to every Govern-
H ment servant who is appointed to a service or post referred to in sub-rule
446
U.0.1.v. DHARMALINGAM [AGRAWAL,J.]
447
(1) of Rule 30 after 31st March, 1960, irrespective of the fact whether he A
was already in government service or was joining Government service for
the first time, at the time of appointment to the service or post referred to
in Rule 30. [ 450-A-B]
1.2. Rule 30(1) seeks to confer a benefit in the matter of addition to
~ualifying service on a Government servant who is appointed to a service
or post fulfilling the conditions laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of
sub-rule(l) of Rule 30 of the Rules after March 31, 1960. The benefit is,
however, limited to the actual period not exceeding one-fourth of the length
B
of his service or the service or post referred to in Rule 30 or the actual
period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years or a C
period of five years whichever is less. This would show that the intention
underlying the said provision is to compensate the Government servant
for the time taken by him in securing the additional qualifications or
experience which are essential for appointment to the service or post.
There is no reason for subjecting a person who is already in Government
service at the time oC-4'.i:ii-appointment to a service or post referred to in D
Rule 30 to a differential treatment and denying him the benefit available
to other persons not in Government service at the time of such appoint-
ment. The language .used in Rule 30 does not make such an invidious
distinction. (450-C, E-H, 451-B]
1.3. The respondent would not be availing a double benefit on ac-
count of the period of his earlier service from May 8, 1956 to may 16, 1960
being counted as part of his 'qualifying service' as defined in rule 3(q) of
the Rules. (451-E]
E
1.4. Keeping in view the provisions of Rules 3(q), 13, 26(2) and 30 of F
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 the period of service
rendered by the respondent from May 8, 1956 to May 16, 1960 has to be
treated as part of his qualifying service and, in the ab~ence of any rule to
the contrary, it cannot be excluded from the qualifying service of the
respondent. [ 452-C-D]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 503 of
1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.88 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in 0.A. No. 182/87.
H
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
V.C. Mahajan, Ms. Niranjan Singh, Anil Katiyar and C.V.S. Rao for·
the Appellants.
'
K.K. Venugopal and Pramod Dayal for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.