Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. The Indian Central Arecanut Committee (ICAC) was dissolved in the year 1968 and had taken over by the Central Government. The respondent, who joined in the service of the ICAC on 22.02.1962, thus became an employee of the Central Government with effect from 1968. The respondent joined as Research Assistant(Pathology) and retired as the Deputy Director under the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture & Co-operation) on 28.2.1992.
2. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal on account of refusal to grant him the benefit of three years added service for determining pension in terms of Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”).
3. Rule 30 of the Rules provides that a Government servant who retires from a service after the 31st March, 1960, shall be eligible to add ( certain number of years mentioned in the rule) to his service qualifying for superannuation pension of a Government servant, provided he possess post-graduate research or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields etc. By third proviso, the concession mentioned as above shall not be admissible to those, who are eligible for counting their past service for superannuation pension unless they opt before the date of their retirement to forgo the weightage of such past service.
4. The respondent claimed the benefit of Rule 30 of the Rules on the premise that he had surrendered the amount of Contributory Pension along with the interest relatable to the service under the ICAC and, therefore, he is eligible for counting the added service. The establishment on the other hand takes the plea that for the purpose of admissible pension, his service in ICAC has already reckoned and the respondent has no case that the service in ICAC has not been reckoned for the purpose for counting qualifying service.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the establishment and the learned counsel for the respondent.
6 The Tribunal took the view that denial of benefit of added service under Rule 30 is illegal. The Tribunal came to that conclusion after adverting to distinction between qualifying service and added service for the purpose of Rule 30 of the Rules. The Tribunal is of the view that the provisions relating to counting of past service and the provisions relating to adding certain number of years, to the regular period of service are different and independent. Since the ICAC was absorbed by the Government of India, it cannot be said that it was like a some other service, in which, the employee enters service independently and followed by other service and in that event service in former being reckoned for qualifying service in reckoning pension in latter service. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner's case would not come under one required his service enters ICAC being reckoned as a service required for reckoning as qualifying service in terms of other Rules. It is to be noted that had the petitioner continued in ICAC he would have been eligible to reckon three years added service in terms of Rule 30 of the Rules. We are of the view that by absorption of the employees by the Government of India after dissolving ICAC, the employees who so have been absorbed cannot be considered as employees of the different establishment and therefore third proviso to Rule 30 has no application in the matter. In view of the above, we see no merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln /True copy/ P.A. to Judge