K.J.Sengupta, J. - (1.) THE above application of Chandi Charan Jana and cross objection of Union of India have been filed against one common judgement and order of the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 6th December, 2006. By this judgement and order impugned the learned Tribunal allowed the prayer of the petitioner, Chandi Charan Jana for granting pro rata pension for the service rendered by him during the period when he was in Central Government establishment. But his prayer for granting interest was not allowed. So this application has been filed by him for the interest and cost. On the other hand, Union of India has challenged the aforesaid impugned judgement and order granting pro rata pension. The fact of the case is as follows: Chandi Charan Jana was appointed in the post of LDC in CPWD in the scale of Rs. 110 -180/ - temporarily with effect from 1st October, 1963 and then he was made quasi -permanent with effect from 2nd October, 1966. He had worked as such till 1973 when he was sent on deputation to International Airport Authority of India (IAAI). Subsequently he was absorbed permanently in IAAI on and from 16th August, 1977. Thereafter, he retired from the services in IAAI on attaining age of superannuation. Upon retirement he asked for pro rata pension and on refusal such demand being met he filed the aforesaid application. The application was opposed by Union of India. Learned Tribunal has s allowed the application as it found that the other employees who are similarly placed and circumstanced were granted the same benefit following the judgement rendered by the learned Tribunal in another case decided earlier.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Union of India contends that the applicant did not qualify himself for pro rata pension as per Rules. He has to render service at least for 20 years in order to get pro rata pension. Admittedly, he rendered service for less than 20 years. So he cannot get pro rata pension under the Rules. Learned counsel further contends that it is true that the department has accepted the judgement rendered in case of Ananta Kumar Swar and others but acceptance of the judgement in one individual case does not create any right to get benefit which is not otherwise legally admissible. Each and every case has to be examined individually and separately to find out whether an employee is entitled to get benefit under law or not. The learned counsel for the respondent has said that the case of the applicant is based upon the equal treatment for equally placed persons. In one case benefit is granted while accepting judgment of the learned Tribunal and in another case similar claim is refused on the ground of law. He has drawn our attention to the C.C.S. Pension Rules regarding grant of pro rata pension and submit that it will appear that the temporary employee is also entitled to get pension if he has rendered qualifying service for 10 years.
(3.) THEREFORE , the order of granting pro rata pension by the learned Tribunal is justified. He contends that the learned Tribunal though allowed the prayer for pro rata pension, refused to grant interest. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted interest from the date of making application before Tribunal if not from the date when the pension has become due and payable.;