IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 7132 of 1999 Between: K.Ramakrishna S/o.K.V.Ramanaiah R/o.101, Prajay Banjara Apartments, Road No.12, Banjara Hills Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India rep.by the Secretary Ministry of Labour New Delhi - 110 001. 2 The Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Shramashakthi Bhavan Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, AP., relating to the Judegment and order Dt.30/09/98 in OA.No.1135/97 and quash the said order as illegal, inoperative and against principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay full pension, arrears, and consequential benefits to the petitioner from 01/07/97 i.e., from the date of superannuation and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.WILLIAM BURRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.RATNA REDDY (ADDL.S.C FOR C.G) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 7132 of 1999 Oral Order : ( Per Sri GM, J ) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30-9-1998 in OA No.1135 of 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the O.A. filed by the writ petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of added years of service for the purpose of pension and other benefits, was dismissed. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Investigator Grade II in the office of the Central Wage Board for Cotton Textile and Sugar Industries, Hyderabad on 1-2-1965. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected through Union Public Service Commission for the post of Labour Enforcement Officer, on 18-11-1968. Later the petitioner was selected through UPSC as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) under the Assistant Labour Commissioner Recruitment Rules, 1958. While, he was functioning as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), the Central Labour Service was constituted by the respondents with effect from 3-2-1987 merging the cadres of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central Pool ), Assistant Welfare Commissioners and Labour Officers (Central Pool) etc., The petitioner sought for the benefit of added years of service for the purpose of pension in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of the Central Civil Service (Pension ) Rules, 1972. The Tribunal by its impugned order dismissed the O.A. Hence, this Writ Petition. Reiterating the contentions that were urged before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since three category of posts were merged into one cadre, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of added years of service as he has completed 32 years 5 months of service. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner was recruited as Labour Enforcement Officer in the year 1981 and later he was promoted as Assistant Labour Commissioner, and that the question of providing benefit of added years of service does not arise. Learned Standing Counsel relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10970 of 1999 dated 27-12-2002, arising out of O.A.No.1130 of 1997 dated 16-2-1999, contended that the petitioner is not entitled for added years of service, and therefore no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel on either side perused the material available on record. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was a direct recruit to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner before formation of the Central Labour Service and he was on deputation to the Central Ware Housing Corporation from 1-7-1985 to 28-9-1986 as Industrial Relations Officer and was posted at Madras. The petitioner was promoted as Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and posted at Chandigarh on 29-9-1986 and continued there till 4-5-1989, after formation of the Central Labour Service. Later he was promoted as Senior Labour Officer, which is equivalent to the post of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras and continued till 31-10-1991. Thereafter, he was posted as Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Madras on 1-11-1991 and worked as such till 27-4-1994. The petitioner was further promoted as Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and was posted at Bangalore on 28-4-1994 and superannuated on 30-6-1997 from that post. In similar circumstances, one A.R. Naidu filed O.A. No.1130 of 1997 before the Tribunal seeking added years of service. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter allowed O.A. filed by A.R.Naidu by its order 16-2-1999, holding that the applicant therein is entitled for added years of service. Challenging the said order, the Government filed Writ Petition No.10970 of 1999 before this Court. This Court considering the rules including Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruitment And Conditions Service Rule, 1951, Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) Recruitment Rules, 1950, and Central Labour Service Rules, 1987, and also judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DHARMALINGAM ( (1) 1994 SCC (Labour Services) 496), held that the applicant therein is not entitled for the benefit of added years of service. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows : “ .. Admittedly, Respondnet-2 ( applicant ) was not appointed to the post under Labour Officers ( Central Pool ) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951. An argument has been advanced by the counsel for Respondent-2 ( applicant ) that he was fully qualified to be appointed to the post of Labour Officer ( Central Pool) and indeed an offer was made to him for that post and, therefore, he was entitled to claim the benefit of added years of service. It is no doubt that Respondent- 2 ( applicant) was selected to the post of Labour Officer (Central Pool), but he did not choose to join. Having failed to accept the post of Labour Officer ( Central Pool) cannot now claim that he is entitled to claim the benefit of added years of service as provided in the rules governing recruitment of Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951. …. 12) Having perused the above rule the following position emerges. Respondent-2 (applicant ) was recruited as Labour Enforcement Officer and thereafter he was appointed as Assistant Labour Commissioner. Regardless of the fact whether that appointment was by promotion or direct recruitment, in both the cases the recruitment rules do not provide for addition of ‘added years of service’ to qualifying service, whereas the Labour Officer ( Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951 provide the benefit of added years of service. The relevant Rule 8 (2) reads as follows : “ The benefit of added years of service under Rule 30 of CLS (Pension) Rules, 1972 will be admissible to the Labour Officers of the Central Pool.” 13. Since the Respondent-2 (applicant) was neither recruited under Labour Officer (Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951 nor worked as Labour Officer (Central Pool), he would not be eligible to claim the benefit of added years of service under Rule 8(2) of the Labour Officers (Central Pool) recruitment and Conditions Service Rules, 1951. The pre-requisite to claim benefit of added years of service under Rule 30(2) is that the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post should contain a specific provision that the service or post is one which carries the benefit of Rule 8(2).…. 14. A question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DHARMALINGAM (1994 SCC (Labour Services ) 496), whether a person can claim both the benefits provided under proviso (2) and (3) of Rule 30 of CCS (Pension ) Rules. The second proviso is with regard to the added service in pursuance of the recruitment rules. The third proviso is with regard to the eligibility for counting their past service. Under the third proviso Respondent-2 ( applicant)’s past service i.e. as Lecturer in Re-orientation Training Centre, Government of Madhya Pradesh has been counted for the purpose of qualifying service with regard to the benefit provided under second proviso, of the recruitment Rules in respect of the post to which respondent-2(applicant) was appointed should have a provision entitled him for added service. Admittedly, the recruitment rules to the post for which respondent-2 (applicant) was appointed do not provide for such added service. The CAT has totally mis-read second proviso to Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and thereby erred in directing the writ petitioner to allow the benefit of added years of service to respondent-2 (applicant) as per law.” Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition 10970 of 1999, dated 27-12-2002 and for the reasons given therein, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly considered the matter and declined to entertain the O.A, as the rules do not provide for any benefit of added years of service. We therefore, do not see any ground to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ GM, J ________________ GC, J Dt : 20-10-2008 Kk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 7132 of 1999 20-10-2008