D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is against the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, in OA No. 43 of 2004 whereby allowing the respondents prayer, the petitioner was directed to pass order for grant of pro rata pensionary benefits to the respondent/applicant and family pension when it becomes due to his family, along with interest within a period of four months from the date of the order.
(2.) THE respondent had joined service as an employee under the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization (CMLWO) under the control of the Government of India, Ministry of Coal on 27.8.1964. After rendering service for more than thirteen years, he tendered his letter of resignation on 28.2.1977 which was accepted by the management on the same day and on the next day, he joined the Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) at Ranchi. Subsequently, he filed an application claiming payment of pro rata pensionary benefits along with family pension, but the same was denied. On application filed by him before the Tribunal, Patna Bench, vide OA No. 114 of 2003, direction was issued to the respondent petitioner to treat the respondents application as his representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law within stipulated period. The matter was re -considered but the respondents claim for pensionary benefit was again rejected by the petitioner and the order of rejection was communicated to him under Order No. 2457 dated 12.9.2003 (Annexure -3). The respondent filed a fresh application before the Tribunal against the impugned order of rejection of his claim for pro rata pensionary benefits. This application registered as OA No. 43 of 2004, was allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 11.2.2005 against which the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
(3.) THE main ground on which the impugned order of the Tribunal has been assailed is that the respondents claim for pensionary benefits was validly rejected under the provisions of Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the Tribunal has wrongly ignored the same. Elaborating the grounds, Dr. J.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner would explain that the petitioner had willingly separated himself from the services of the CMLWO by tendering resignation on 28.2.1977 which was accepted and after his separation, the respondent joined service under the Central Coalfields Limited, which is not a qualifying service under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Learned counsel would further explain that under Rules 13 and 14 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, a qualifying service has been defined as service under the Government and for which payment is made by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the Government of India or Local Board administered by that Government. Referring to Rule 26 (2) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, learned Counsel argues that the Central Coalfields Limited where the respondent took up service after his resignation, is a public undertaking and payment to employees under the CCL is not made from any Consolidated Fund or from the Local Board of the Government. The respondents service under the CCL being not a qualifying service, the respondent is not entitled to any pro rata pensionary benefits under the aforesaid Rules and his past service would stand forfeited.;