Dismissed¶¶76

Dr a Janardhan v. Union of India

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025WP/30083/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

pro rata pension; technical resignation vs resignation; Rule 26 CCS (Pension) Rules 1972; forfeiture of past service; delay and laches; Section 19 Administrative Tribunals Act 1985; OA No.170/00077/2023; Central Administrative Tribunal Bengaluru Bench; Article 227 Karnataka High Court; ISRO / UR Rao Satellite Centre; CMC Ltd transferred to TCS Ltd; Provident Fund transfer; State of Rajasthan v O.P. Gupta (2022) 9 SCC 785 distinguished; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

To be entitled to pro rata pension from the original employer with benefit of service under the subsequent employer, the petitioner must make out an express right under the CCS Rules; the Rules cannot be contrived to infer such a right, and therefore this Court finds no cause for interference. ¶¶72

Dr a Janardhan Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having resigned from M/s ISRO (severance claimed to be a technical severance distinct from resignation under Rule 26 CCS Rules), is entitled to pro rata pension from M/s ISRO counting service rendered to the subsequent employer M/s CMC Ltd. +1 more

¶¶72

Court's answer

¶¶72

Ratio / Principle

The Court found considerable force in the respondent's submissions distinguishing the Apex Court decision in State of Rajasthan v. O.P. Gupta (where the concerned had retired after 26 years of service): a claim to pension on past service would, if at all, lie against M/s CMC Ltd. (subject to qualifying-service conditions), not against M/s ISRO, especially with the break of about 9 years in CMC service and CMC having been transferred to TCS Ltd.

¶¶67

Key takeaways

Delay is significant in the present case because there is change even in the position with M/s CMC Ltd.ratio¶¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (S-CAT) under Article 227 by a former Scientific Assistant/Technical Assistant of UR Rao Satellite Centre (ISRO), aged about 72, challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench order dated 21/06/2024 in OA No.170/00077/2023 rejecting his claim for pro rata pension for ISRO service (from 10.06.1977; resignation accepted 17.12.1980) and consequent benefits, along with Communications dated 20.05.2022 and 29.03.2022. The Tribunal had rejected the OA on delay and laches (representations first made in 2020) and on forfeiture under Rule 26, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Division Bench (B M Shyam Prasad and T.M.Nadaf, JJ.) held that entitlement to pro rata pension from the original employer with the benefit of subsequent-employer service must rest on an express CCS Rule right and 'the Rules cannot be contrived to infer a right'; found considerable force in distinguishing State of Rajasthan v. O.P. Gupta, (2022) 9 SCC 785 (there the person had retired after 26 years); observed any past-service pension claim would lie against M/s CMC Ltd. (transferred to TCS Ltd.), not ISRO; and held delay significant given changed circumstances with CMC. Petition rejected on 28.10.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 30083 OF 2024 (S-CAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

DR A JANARDHAN S/O KANAKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT B UR RAO SATELLITE CENTRE, (PREVIOUSLY ISRO SATELLITE CENTRE) ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560231.

¶12

ALSO AT C/O DR JAGANATH 338, PRANAVENDU, 18^TH MAIN, AGS LAYOUT, AREHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SKANDA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M D RAGHUNATH., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560231.

¶18

THE CHAIRMAN UR RAO SATELLITE CENTRE, (PREVIOUSLY ISRO SATELLITE CENTRE), ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560231.

¶19

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE, JANPATH BHAWAN, B WING, 8^TH FLOOR, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B PRAMOD., CGC FOR R1)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

¶23

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION ON COSTS; b) ISSUE A

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-C DATED 21/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH IN OA NO.170/00077/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER NO.DS18017/2/2018-SECTION 6-DOS (SEC-V) DATED 20/05/2022 AND NO.020/1(1)/2022/E-II, DATED 29/03/2022 AT ANNEXURE-A17 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 THE CHAIRMAN, UR RAO SATELLITE CENTER AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

¶29

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶36

The petitioner has unsuccessfully prosecuted his application in OA NO.170/00077/2023 with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [‘the Tribunal’] under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for directions to the second respondent to fix eligible pro rata pension and permit him to draw arrears and all consequential benefits while calling in question the second respondent's Communications dated 20.05.2022 and 29.03.2022.

¶37

The second respondent, in these Communications dated 20.05.2022 and 29.03.2022, has opined that the petitioner in making a representation for his pro rata pension is misinterpreting the relevant rules and that he would not be eligible.

¶38

The Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application on the ground of delay and laches and also on the ground that the petitioner, with tendering

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

resignation, has forfeited his right as contemplated under Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services [Pension] Rules, 1972 [for short, the ' CCS Rules ']. The Tribunal's finding on delay is thus:

¶43

"At the outset, the OA suffers from delay and laches. Indisputably, the applicant offered his resignation to the post of Technical Assistant 'C' held in ISRO and the same was accepted by the Respondent No. 2 vide office order dated 17.12.1980 (Annexure-A5). Thereafter, the applicant had joined CMC Limited on 19.12.1980 and got relieved on 09.05.1989 submitting his resignation. No reasons, much less satisfactory reasons, are assigned by the applicant for not seeking grant of pro-rata pension after relieving from CMC Limited with effect from 09.05.1989 well within a reasonable time. The applicant has aired his voice only in the year 2020 submitting representations before the Respondent No. 2. The tardy action of the applicant remaining silent for nearly more than 3 decades and suddenly rising like a phoenix from the slumber cannot be countenanced. on the ground of delay and laches alone, OA deserves to be rejected."

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

This Court, before adverting to the

¶48

grievance as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, must record the undisputed circumstances as those would be material. The petitioner has rendered service with M/s ISRO for three years as Scientific Assistant with effect from 10.06.1977, and he is promoted as a Technical Assistant with effect from 01.10.1980. The petitioner’s resignation is accepted vide order dated 17.12.1980 and he is relieved from his role to report to duty with M/s CMC Ltd., a Government of India Enterprise as of that day. The petitioner has participated in the selection process with permission from M/s ISRO.

¶49

The petitioner has worked with M/s CMC Ltd. until 09.05.1989 when he is relieved on acceptance of his resignation. M/s ISRO, on the petitioner tendering resignation, has transferred the Provident Fund balance as of that date to M/s CMC

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Ltd., and he has also received the PF amount from M/s CMC Ltd. The petitioner has corresponded both with M/s ISRO and M/s CMC Ltd. on his claim for pro rata pension. With M/s CMC Ltd. writing to M/s ISRO that the petitioner must be called upon to return the amount received to avail pro rata pension [ the correspondence is in the year 2013 ], the petitioner has filed his application with the Tribunal not just against M/s ISRO but also against M/s CMC Ltd.

¶54

Sri Skanda Kumar, the learned counsel

¶55

for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because the petitioner will not forfeit past service and he would be entitled to pro rata pension as severance from M/s ISRO would be a technical severance distinct from resignation as contemplated under Rule 26 of the CCS Rules. On the question of delay and laches as observed by the Tribunal, Sri Skanda Kumar submits that the delay and laches

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

could be held against the petitioner if he was asking for an alteration in settled position but the petitioner is only seeking vindication of his right to receive pro rata pension from M/s ISRO. In fact, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in

¶60

State of Rajasthan and others vs O.P. Gupta¹ to emphasize the distinction between technical resignation and resignation for the purpose of Rule 26 of the CCS Rules and that delay cannot be cited when the petitioner is not seeking to alter a settled position.

¶61

As against these submissions, Sri B. Pramod, the learned Panel Counsel for M/s ISRO [the second respondent], submits that this Court must make a distinction in the present case from the case on hand with the Apex Court because there, the concerned was asking for counting of his past service for pension from the employer from whose services he

¶62

1 (2022) 9 SCC 785

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

had retired after having served for 26 years. The learned counsel also submits that in accordance with the CCS Rules, M/s ISRO has transferred the Provident Fund to M/s CMC Ltd., and if the petitioner could rely upon past service for pension, it should be a claim as against M/s CMC Ltd., and not against M/s ISRO with the break in continuance of the service with M/s CMC Ltd., for about 9 years.

¶67

This Court must also record that Mr. B. Pramod states, without dispute, that M/s CMC Ltd., is transferred to M/s TCS Ltd., a private enterprise and maybe the petitioner is prosecuting his claim against M/s ISRO only because of the afore. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions by Sri B. Pramod. If the petitioner has put in minimum qualifying years as of the date of his service with M/s CMC Ltd., he could have made a claim subject to conditions that would not defeat such claim, but the petitioner is seeking for pro rata pension for the

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

service rendered with M/s ISRO counting the benefit of the service that he has rendered for M/s CMC Limited and that too his application under Section 19 is after over three decades of cessation of service with M/s CMC Ltd.

¶72

The petitioner, to be entitled for pro rata pension from M/s ISRO, must make out a right under the CCS Rules where it is stated that an employee would be entitled to a pension from the original employer with the benefit of the service rendered to the subsequent employer and that too on pro rata basis for the service rendered with the original employer. The Rules cannot be contrived to infer a right. Therefore, this Court does not find cause for interference, and this Court must also observe that delay is significant in the present case because there is change even in the position with M/s CMC Ltd.

¶73