JACOB CHANDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the issues involved in these two Original Applications are identical these two O.AS. were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) According to the applicant's averment in the O.A., he was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on regular basis on 9.3.1959 in the Port of Cochin (now Cochin Port Trust), then a subordinate office under the Control of the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (now Ministry of Surface Transports). He was thereafter transferred to "the Second Ship Yard" at Cochin on and w.e.f. 8.6.1961. The Second Ship Yard also in the same Ministry was under the Administrative Control of the Chairman of the Port of Cochin. The same Chairman was declared to be the Head of the department as regards those working in the Second Ship Yard also. Regular and substantive posts were created at the time of commencement of work in Second Ship and the applicant's transfer and appointment was against one such post. Several others working in different other departments/office of the Central Government were also drafted to work in the said Ship Yard though on deputation basis. While working in the Ship Yard he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk and granted quasi permanency against the post of LDC w.e.f. 9.6.1964 and thereafter as UDC w.e.f. 24.12.1968. His initial appointment was after a due process of selection and his service throughout was substantive service liable to be treated as qualifying for pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Second Ship Yard since 1969 was being called as Cochin Ship Yard Project. During 1972 the Cochin Ship Yard Ltd. and Govt. of India undertaking was constituted. The Cochin Ship Yard Project/Second Ship Yard was ordered to be transferred to the Cochin Ship Yard Ltd. by A-1 order dated 21.4.1972. Pending finalisation by the company of its own terms and conditions of service for its staff the company took over on a purely provisional basis all the staff of the project as on 1.4.1972. On their existing terms and conditions of service and deputation wherever applicable. The applicant was a Central Govt. employee and had 13 years and 23 days of pensionable qualifying service as on 1.4.1972--the date of being taking over by the Company. No option was called for from the applicant nor did he exercise any option to reckon his Central Govt. Service as part of the service of the Cochin Ship Yard Ltd,--a Public Sector Undertaking. The applicant was promoted from time to time and he superannuated on 28.2.1994 while working as manager (Administration) in the scale of 3700-5900/- The applicant submitted A-2 representation dated 12.10.99 addressed to the first respondent followed by A-3 reminder dated 20/22, 12.99. The applicant did not get any reply. However, the applicant in O.A. No. 693/2000 Shri Bhanuvikraman who was identically situated and whose case was rejected by the Government by A-4 letter dated 3.1.2000, and the applicant came to know that he would not get any individual reply and that the reasons stated in A-4 would apply to him also. Aggrieved the applicant filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) SECOND respondent filed reply statement in each of the above O.As. it was admitted that the applicant in O.A. 401/2000 had 13 years of service and the one in O.A. 603/2000 had 10.5 year of service in the Central Government and that at the time of taking over of the employees in the Company the service rendered by them in Central Government was taken into consideration in fixing their service conditions. The applicants were also given all the benefits of their past service under the Central Govt. and the service under the Central Govt. was counted for the purpose of pay, grant of increment, payment of gratuity, etc. It was also submitted that the durations of their employment under the Central Govt. were taken as Company's service for al the purposes. Their gratuities were worked out for the entire period of their service upto the date of superannuation. It was submitted that there was no pension scheme for the second respondent company and the applicants were in receipt of monthly pension under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. There was no unilateral conduct by the second respondent in giving them any benefit. According to the second respondent the allegation that the action of the second respondent Company in giving them any benefit as unauthorised and uncalled for, was without any basis and merit.