UNION OF INDIA Vs. HANSRAJ KARSAN JADHVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Hansraj Karsan Jadavani (respondent) was a Carpenter with the petitioner. Having completed 21 years of service, he sent communication dated 15.7.1976 (Annexure-C). Some time, thereafter he claimed pension / ex-gratia pension but the petitioner rejected the same --------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? vide order dated 19.8.2000. This order was challenged by the respondent through OA/661/2000. By order dated 19.6.2001, CAT directed the petitioner to examine the case of respondent in light of CAT Full Bench decision in SMT.BHOBA M. ZENDE V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ 1997 (2) ATJ 305 ] and to pass appropriate order. Consequent to this direction, matter was considered by the petitioner and order passed on 28.8.2002. This order was subject matter of challenge in Original Application No.498 of 2002.

(2.) Giving consideration to the matter in the context of decision in case of SMT.SHOBHA M. ZENDE (Supra) and decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.1330 of 2004 - UNION OF INDIA V. DALSUKH NARAN decided on 3.2.2004, CAT held that communication of respondent dated 15.7.1976 could not be treated as resignation. He sought relievement, therefore, could be treated voluntary retirement. Consequently, Original Application was allowed directing the respondents to calculate and make payment of ex-gratia from January, 1999 onwards, payable within period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of order, otherwise, interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. on the calculated amount from the date the period of three months expires till the date of payment.

(3.) Through this petition, this order has been assailed by the petitioner. Shri R.M.Vin, learned counsel for Union of India submits that communication of respondent dated 15.7.1976 is resignation, therefore, he is not entitled to pension. Learned counsel refers to the Apex Court decision in RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR V. CECIL DENNIS SOLOMON & ANR [ JT 2003 (10) SC 156 and submits that the Apex Court has held that in service jurisprudence, the expressions "Superannuation", "Voluntary Retirement", "Compulsory Retirement" and "Resignation" convey different connotations and operated differently. Respondent having resigned voluntarily, relationship of "Master" and "Servant" has ended, therefore, entitlement to pension did not survive. Further, strong reliance is placed on Railway's instructions dated 27.11.1998 / 7.12.1998 to submit that ex-gratia payment is not admissible to those SRPF(C) beneficiaries who have retired from service other than on superannuation viz. on medical invalidation, voluntary retirement, compulsory retirement as a measure of penalty, premature retirement, retirement on permanent absorption in or under a Corporation of Company or body corporate or incorporate etc.. Therefore, employees who have retired from service otherwise than, on superannuation cannot be sanctioned ex-gratia payment. In other words, the submission is that employees who retire on superannuation and have rendered atleast 20 years of continues service prior to superannuation are entitled to ex-gratia payment.