- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by Dr. C.P. Acharya, which is directed against the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal dt. 4.1.2011. The Tribunal by the aforesaid judgement has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Petitioner has in the original application prayed for quashment of the orders/letters dt.17.5.2002, 6.4.2005, 26.5.2006, 22.12.2006, 18.1.2007 and 27.5.2005 and for a direction to the respondents for counting the past services rendered by him with the Government of Rajasthan since 1.10.1964 to 26.8.1977 as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension and for recalculating and grant of full pension with all consequential benefits treating his qualifying service as 36 years and 10 months with interest @ 18% per annum. Indisputably, the petitioner rendered services on the substantive post of Teacher Gr. III and thereafter Teacher Gr. II with the department of Sanskrit Education, State of Rajasthan from the period between 1.10.1964 to 3.12.1971. While serving the State of Rajasthan, he applied for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Border Security Force Academy (Boy's School) Tekanpur, Gwalior through proper channel and with the permission of the competent authority. On being selected, he was relieved by Principal, Government Sanskrit College, Udaipur. Request of the petitioner to maintain his lien with the Sanskrit Education Department was granted. Petitioner joined services with the BSF Academy on 9.12.1971 and served upto 25.8.1977. While so serving, petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short -KVS) through proper channel. On his selection as Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi) with KVS, he was relieved by the Government of Rajasthan. Petitioner joined services with KVS on 26.8.1977. He was confirmed in the services of KVS on 1.8.1991 and later promoted on the post of Principal Gr. II. The KVS issued a letter on 29.7.1986 forwarding order of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare O.M. No. 20 (10)/84 -P&PW -Vol. II dt. 7.2.1986 for counting the past services for the purpose of pension of employees of Central Government and Central Autonomous Body seeking absorption in the State of Rajasthan and vice versa. Petitioner on that basis submitted an application on 4.1.1989 to count his services rendered under the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of pension. The said application was forwarded by Principal K.V. No. 1 to Assistant Commissioner, KVS, Regional Office, Jaipur on 7.1.1989. Petitioner retired as Vice Principal, K.V. No. 3, Jaipur on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2001. The Assistant Commissioner (Administrative and Finance), KVS, New Delhi by order dt. 17.5.2002 refused to count the past services of the petitioner on the ground that he did not exercise option for counting such services within the prescribed time limit i.e. upto 31.12.1990. Petitioner submitted another representation on 11.7.2004, which was forwarded by the Regional Assistant Commissioner, KVS vide letter dt. 15.7.2004. By order dt. 6.4.2005 again respondent No. 4 namely; Varistha Prashasnik Adhikari (Sthapana), KVS, New Delhi denied the benefit of counting the past services of petitioner for the purpose of pension. Petitioner then submitted representation on 14.4.2005 which was forwarded by the Sahayak Ayukt vide letter dt. 27.4.2005 and was rejected vide letter dt. 27.5.2005. Petitioner again made representation on 19.4.2006, which too was rejected on 26.5.2006. It was in those facts that the petitioner filed Original Application before the Tribunal praying for the aforesaid reliefs, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by impugned order dt. 5.1.2011.
(2.) SHRI R.N. Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first application which the petitioner submitted for counting his services as qualifying for the purpose of grant of pension was dt. 4.1.1989 and therefore that would be considered as sufficient compliance of exercise of option by the petitioner. Petitioner not only rendered service with the State of Rajasthan, but also part of service he rendered with BSF while retaining lien with the State Government, is also refused to be counted by the KVS for the purpose of grant of pension. When petitioner submitted initial application on 4.1.1989, there was no reason for him not to believe that his option would not be accepted, particularly when proper instructions in this behalf have been issued by the Government of India. He came to learn about non -counting of his services for the purpose of pension only when his pension case was finalised and he received the pension papers. It is argued that the loss of pension to the petitioner is a perennial and continuous cause of action and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have rejected the Original Application on the ground of limitation. It is argued that the application for condonation of delay has also been dismissed by the Tribunal. The reasons given by the Tribunal are wholly unjustified and irrelevant. Petitioner would not have deliberately caused the delay because he would not be benefited thereby. The Tribunal apart from rejecting the Original Application on delay has also rejected the same on merits. Impugned order suffers from numerous infirmities and has many contradictions.
(3.) IT is argued that for counting the services for the purpose of grant of pension to the employees of Central Government and Central Autonomous Bodies seeking absorption in Autonomous Bodies under the State Government and vice -versa, KVS has issued an order whereby copy of the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Pension of Pensioners Welfare O.M. No. 28 (10)/84 P and PW -Vol. II dt. 7.2.1986 has been forwarded for information and necessary action to all KVS. These orders clearly substantiate that there is a reciprocal arrangement for counting the past services of the employees moving from Government of Rajasthan to Central Government or Vice - Versa. The first application that petitioner submitted on 4.1.1989 was forwarded by his Principal on 7.1.1989. As regards the option, the learned, senior counsel argued that neither the respondents invited options, nor was any letter inviting such option was ever served upon the petitioner. The letter dt. 17.5.2002 was not endorsed to the petitioner, nor was served on him or nor was otherwise brought to his notice. It cannot be said that the petitioner has made any delay in exercising the option, more particularly, when he has already submitted a request to that effect vide his application dt. 4.1.1989, which was forwarded by the Principal of his school by his letter dt. 7.1.1989. It is argued that the Tribunal has mechanically rejected the Original Application without objectively applying its mind to the facts of the case. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner even submitted a detailed representation to the Commissioner, KVS, New Delhi on 11.7.2004 wherein he invited attention of the respondents that he had already submitted his option through proper channel on 4.1.1989 for counting his services, but that aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the Tribunal. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the prayers made as above. Shri Krishna Verma, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner retired from services on 31.7.2001 and he for the first time filed the Original Application on 20.8.2007, therefore, the Original Application has rightly been dismissed as time barred. It is submitted that as per provisions of Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the petitioner could be awarded maximum six months from the date of filing of representation and thereafter he was required to have file Original Application within one year on expiry of such six months. Petitioner has not given any justification as to why the Original Application was filed with enormous delay after lapse of six years from the date of retirement. It is argued that the petitioner was appointed in the services of KVS way back on 26.8.1977, therefore, in a way, petitioner is seeking to make a stale claim, more than three decades thereafter. Learned counsel argued that KVS had issued a letter on 20.10.1990 that for everyone to exercise option for counting his past service rendered outside the KVS, subject to certain restrictions, on or before 31.12.1990. This letter was issued as special case so that eligible employees, who have not hitherto exercised such option for counting the past service were allowed to exercise such option. The petitioner failed to exercise his option, therefore, his past services were not added with the service of KVS. It is argued that Border Security Force (BSF) has not been joined as a party -respondent either before the Central Administrative Tribunal or before this Court in regard to the alleged service rendered by petitioner in BSF, therefore, also the Original Application was liable to be dismissed. It was argued that a similar writ petition titled Murlidhar Sharma through his L.Rs. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1780/2010, has been dismissed by this Court by judgement dt. 14.08.2012. It was denied that the petitioner submitted the letter dt. 4.1.1989 exercising the option. Such a plea is false, without any factual foundation and contrary to the material on record. Reference was made to the Circular dt. 7.2.1986 issued by the Government of India. The option for counting the past service for the purpose of pensionary benefits was required to be exercised within one year from the date of absorption and joining in the department of Government of India and since the petitioner did not exercise such option, he would not be entitled to now exercise the option. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.;