Dismissed

Amar Singh v. UOI and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Nov 2009CWP/17364/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a former Indian Army officer absorbed into the Railway Protection Force, sought pension for 17 years of service after resigning due to ill health before completing 20 years. The court held he could not get pension under Section 53 as he did not join another corporation, nor under Rule 67 as he lacked qualifying service.

What did the court decide?

Claim for proportionate pensionary benefits dismissed.

Amar Singh Vs UOI and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 17364 of 2006 Date of Decision: 6.11.2009.

Amar Singh

--Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:Mr. N.P. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents.

¶10

¶11

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶12

The petitioner was serving in the Indian Army, where he served from 29.11.1957 to 19.4.1980. After serving the Indian Army and being retired therefrom the petitioner sought re-employment with the Railway Protection Force, where he joined on 18.4.1981. He served the force up to 30.11.1998 rendering 17 years 7 months and 12 days of service. While serving in RPF, the petitioner vide his letter dated 4.6.1998 applied for voluntarily retirement on account of his ill health. Vide communication dated 29.7.1998 the petitioner was informed that his service is less than 20 years and on accepting his request for voluntary retirement, he will not be entitled to the benefit of pension. He may apply for resignation as constable for which three months notice is essential. It appears that acting upon the aforesaid letter the petitioner submitted his resignation vide letter dated 6.8.1998 seeking resignation w.e.f. 5.11.1998. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted from 30.11.1998 vide communication dated 24.9.1998. On being discharged from the service the petitioner claimed the pensionary benefits. Having failed to persuade the respondents, the

¶13

CWP. No. 17364 of 2006 -2-

¶14

petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction for payment of the proportionate pensionary benefits for rendering 17 years 7 months and 12 days of service in the RPF.

¶15

The claim of the petitioner is, however, disputed in the reply filed by the respondents. The primary ground on which the claim is being denied is that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of the minimum qualifying service which alone entitles him for the pensionary benefits.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 53 of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1983, which reads as under:-

¶18

“ 53. Pension on absorption in or under a Corporation, company or body.

¶19

(1) A railway servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Govt. or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Govt. shall, if such absorption is declared by the Govt. to be in the Public Interest, be deemed to have retired from the service from the date his resignation is accepted and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits which he may have elected or deemed to have elected, and from such date as may be determined in accordance with the orders of the railway applicable to him.

¶20

Explanation: Date of absorption shall be-

¶21

(i) In case a railway employee joins a corporation or company or body on immediate absorption basis, the date on which he actually joins that corporation or company or body;

¶22

(ii) In case a railway employee initially joins a corporation or

¶23

CWP. No. 17364 of 2006

¶24

-3-

¶25

company or body on foreign service terms by retaining a lien under the railways the date from which his unqualified resignation is accepted by the railways.

¶26

(2) The provisions of sub-rule (i) shall also apply to a railway servant who is permitted to be absorbed in joint sector undertakings, wholly under the joint control of Central Govt. and State Governments/Union Territory Administrations or under the joint control of two or more state Governments or Union Territory Administrations.

¶27

(3) Where there is a pension scheme in a body controlled or financed by the Central Govt. in which a railway servant is absorbed, he shall be entitled to exercise option either to count the service rendered under the railways in that body for pension or to receive pro-rate retirement benefit for the service rendered under the railways in accordance with the orders issued by the railways.

¶28

Explanation: Body means autonomous body or statutory

¶29

body.”

¶30

From the perusal of the aforesaid rule it is evident that this rule is applicable where an employee on permission from the railways joins a corporation or company wholly and substantially owned or controlled by the Govt. or any other body or Corporation controlled or financed by the Govt. In the present case this rule has no application. The petitioner did not resign from the railway service to join another corporation. The rule is actually meant for such employees, who are basically the regular railway employees, carrying pensionable job. The petitioner was earlier in the Indian Army. He is getting pension from the Army. He could have secured the pension as a member of the RPF only on completion of 20 years of service in terms of

¶31

CWP. No. 17364 of 2006

¶32

-4-

¶33

Rule 67 of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the relevant extract whereof reads as under:-

¶34

“ 67. Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service(1) At any time after a railway servant has completed twenty

¶35

years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service.”

¶36

The aforesaid rule does not provide for proportionate pension, where a person has less than the qualifying service.

¶37

In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Petition dismissed.

¶38

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶39

6.11.2009 lucky

Amar Singh v. UOI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh v. UOI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makhan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Tej Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Vijay Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sahdev Singh Baj Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajender Kumar Tanwar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab Etc.Q