C S SUBRAMANIAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original Application is filed by the applicant a retired Director (GEOL) Selection Grade, Geological Survey of India (Operations) Kerala, Trivandrum, aggrieved by A-1 order dated 8.2.99 issued by the first respondent rejecting his claim to count the service rendered by him as Geological Assistant in the State Geologist Department of Industries and Commerce and Ground Water Cell of the Public Health Department of the Govt. of Tamil Nadu. He sought the following reliefs through this O.A.

(2.) As per the averments of the applicant in the Original Application he was first appointed as Geological Assistant in the office of the State Geologist Department of Industries and Commerce, Govt. of Tamil Nadu as per order No. 4828/E2/63 dated 15.6.1963 and continued as Geological Assistant in the above Department till 31.3.1965. In support of the averment applicant produced A2 certificate dated 5.5.96 issued by the Commissioner, Geologist and Mining, Madras. Thereafter, the applicant was appointed by transfer as Geological Assistant pursuant to a selection conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the Ground Water Cell of the Public Health Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu. By A3 order dated 31.3.65 he was relived from State Geological Department of Industries and Commerce, Tamil Nadu State w.e.f. 31.3.65 to join the Ground Water Cell where by A-4 order dated 1.4.65 he was posted as Geological Assistant in the Ground Water Cell Sub Division No. 1. On the basis of the selection conducted by the UPSC he was appointed as Geological (Junior) in the Geological Survey of India as per A-5 order dated 30.4.65. By A-6 order dated 9.6.65 he was relieved from the post of Geological Assistant to join the post of Geologist (Junior) in the Geological Survey of India. He continued in the Department of Geological Survey of India and retired from service on superannuation on 31.5.97 while holding the post of Director (GEO) Selection Grade, GSI (operations), Kerala, Trivandrum rendering 31 years 11 months and 17 days of service. He submitted a representation dated 7.1.1997 before the Administrative Officer, GSI Southern Regional Office, Hyderabad requesting to fix his pensionary benefits taking into account the service rendered by him under the State of Tamil Nadu. The representation submitted by the applicant was forwarded by the Administrative Officer to the 2nd respondent as per A-7 communication dated 30.1.97. Thereafter the third respondent as per letter dated 27.8.97 sought clarification from the applicant. The applicant by A-8 letter dated 11.9.97 sent clarification. Thereafter, 3rd respondent as per A-9 letter dated November, 1997 sought further clarification from the Commissioner of Geology & Mining, Madras and also from the Superintending Engineer, Ground Water Cell, Madras, Department of Geology and Mining sent A-10 reply dated 4.12.97. Second respondent forwarded by A-11 letter to the 1st respondent for counting the past service of the applicant but the approval of the 1st respondent never came. Third respondent again sent A-12 communication. The applicant executed A-13 affidavit and the same was forwarded to the second respondent. Thereafter the first respondent passed A1 order dated 8.2.99 rejecting the claim of the applicant to count the service rendered by him as Geological Assistant under the Government of Tamil Nadu as qualifying service for computation of pension. Against Annexure A1 order dated 8.2.99 applicant submitted A-14 representation on 9.6.99 before the 1st respondent. Alleging that the reliance placed by the respondents on the proviso a to Rule 14(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as misconceived and relying on Govt. of India A-15 OM dated 30.6.76, A-16 OM dated 31.3.82, A-17 OM dated 9.10.86 and A-18 OM dated 25.10.87. Applicant claimed that he was entitled to count the service rendered by him under the State Govt. as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of his pensionary benefits and the applicant was entitled to get full pension. He submitted that A-1 was issued without reference to the above orders and was illegal. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1994(2) SCC 240 that any amount if illegally withheld from any person who was legally entitled to the said amount he submitted that the person who was deprived of the said amount was entitled to receive interest for the amount withheld.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the applicant specifically took us through A-15, A-16, A-17 and A-18 OM and submitted that the applicant is entitled to count the services rendered by him under the Govt. of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The learned Counsel for the respondents took us through the reply statement and resisted the claim of the applicant.