- (1.) The petitioner seeks for the quashing of the order passed on 08.06.2004 by the Board of Governors of Sainik School Society declining to entertain the prayer of the petitioner for treating the petitioner's services in the earlier employment which was also a pensionable service to be counted for qualifying years of service. The petitioner had been appointed originally on 30.06.1963 as a National Discipline Scheme Instructor which was a scheme run by the Department of Youth Sports and Affairs under the Ministry of Human Resources Development. The petitioner's contention regarding the nature of appointment and the fact that he had made contribution towards pension is seen from the reply filed by the Secretary, Department of Youth Sports and Affairs where it is admitted by the 4th respondent in para 2 on merits that the petitioner was appointed as NDS Instructor on 30.06.1963 under the National Discipline Scheme of the erstwhile Ministry of Education and Social Welfare. He had resigned from the post on 18.07.1975 and joined as Hostel Superintendent in Sainik School, Kunjpura, Haryana, on 19.07.1975.
(2.) On a plea by the petitioner for counting of service with the 4th respondent, the Sainik School appears to have engaged the Ministry in a communication about the transfer of contribution that had been made or undertaking of liability by the 4th respondent. The Government has responded to the letter issued on 07.07.2000 by the respondents 2 and 3 that an amount of Rs.15,634/- was being paid to the Principal, Sainik School as pro rata pensionary benefits for the services which the petitioner had rendered from 30.06.1963 to 18.07.1975. This remittance of Rs.15,634/- has been received by the Sainik School but the contention is that the amount remitted by them was not appropriate and commensurate with the liability cast on the respondents having to pay Rs.1,100/- per month as pro rata pensionary benefits and not the adequate share for the amount of Rs.1,59,279/- payable in lump sum. The defence therefore by the Sainik School establishment is that the proportionate share of past liability of Rs.1,59,279/- was not being shared with any undertaking given by the 4th respondent and pro rata pension of Rs.1,100/- cannot also be paid by the mere transfer of an amount of Rs.15,000/-.
(3.) There is no representation on behalf of the 4th respondent and it would seen that the dispute is more between the Sainik School establishment and the Ministry of Youth Affairs to which the petitioner cannot join issues. The petitioner's entitlement to the pension itself is not seen to be denied in the manner in which the respective replies have been filed. The contention, however, has been only that the Central Government has not transferred the full contributions and has not given an undertaking to shoulder the responsibility towards the pension contribution for the relevant period. The Pension Rules governing the grant of pension to an employee of Sainik School provides through Rule 1.2 as follows:- "1.2 For the purpose of counting of service for reckoning the quantum of pension, the following conditions are laid down:- (a) Pension will be admissible only for the length of service rendered on regular basis in a Sainik School. (b) In case of the employees, who have rendered service in organizations other than Sainik Schools, service will be counted towards pension, provided- (i) the erstwhile service is a pensionable service and, (ii) the erstwhile organization undertakes in writing that it will bear the financial liability towards pension contribution for the relevant period.";