SURJIT SINGH Vs. CENTRAL ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by challenging order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure P. 14) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity ^e Tribunal ) in O.A. No. 479/Pb.2007. The prayer of the petitioner for quashing order dated 5.7.2001 removing him from service, which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal has been declined and the subsequent orders dated 2.5.2006 and 3.2.2007 declining the request of the petitioner to join his duty on any suitable post of equal pay scale or in the alternative to allow him pension by treating the period of his illness as qualifying service have also been rejected.

(2.) Facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as Diesel Fitter on 1.6.1991. He has been suffering from mental disorder and psychiatric disease since 1995 for which he has been treated. He was served with a charge sheet for remaining absent from duty without any sanctioned leave. On the basis of ex-parte enquiry penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him vide order dated 6.7.2001. On a revision petition filed by him the penalty of removal from service was reduced to that of compulsory retirement on 2.5.2006. He claimed pension and pensionaly benefits by arguing that compulsory retirement does not result in forfeiture of qualifying service. The Tribunal after considering rival contentions has concluded that his total service comes to slightly more than 10 years. However, he remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 4 years 4 months and 17 days. He did not produce any medical certificate in respect of the period he remained absent. On the basis of Rule 14(x) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for brevity the Rules ) the period of unauthorized absence has been treated as non qualifying period for pension and there are it has been found that the petitioner did not have sufficient period of qualifying service to entitle him to claim pension.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel at a considerable length and find that Rule 14(x) of the Rules does not leave any manner of doubt with regard to forfeiture of period in respect of which an employee has remained absent from duty unauthorisedly. The relevant portion reads thus: