: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4786 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4786 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4786 OF 2005 Union of India & Anr. .. Petitioners. Versus Vinayak Pandurang Vaidya & Anr. .. Respondents. Mrs.N.V.Masurkar with Mr.V.S.Masurkar for the petitioners. Mr.U.B.Nighot for respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 8.2.2005 in O.A.No.682 of 2003. 2. The respondent No.1 had joined the service of the Central Government as a Lower Division Clerk in 1961. Admittedly, he resigned from this post on 21.7.1977. For the first time, he made a representation only in the year 1999 that he should be given pension. That representation was rejected. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.682 of 2003 for an order directing the Central Government to pay him pension. It appears that he also filed an application for condonation of delay. The C.A.T. decided the said O.A. by order dated 8.2.2005. The C.A.T. relying on a : 2 : judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JK JK JK Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur v/s. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur v/s. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 1808, State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 1808, State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 1808, allowed the claim made by the petitioner. 3. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. 4. It appears from the order that it was specifically contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application has been filed before the Tribunal for pension by the respondent No.1 after 24 years of his retirement. There is no sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay. 5. Perusal of the order shows that, in paragraph 4, the Tribunal refers to this contention that there is a delay of about 25 years in moving the Tribunal and there is no sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay. But in the entire length of the order, the Tribunal does not discuss anywhere as to what is the sufficient cause shown by the respondent No.1 for condonation of delay and in the last sentence, the Tribunal condoned the delay by disposing off the application for condonation of delay. 6. Really speaking, the order of the C.A.T. is : 3 : liable to be set aside because the C.A.T. without giving any reason has condoned the delay of about 25 years in filing the application. The C.A.T. has in its order relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JK Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. JK Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. JK Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) (supra) (supra) which was the case under the Industrial Disputes Act. Our attention has been invited to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Union of India & Union of India & Ors. v/s. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 S.C.C. 309 Ors. v/s. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 S.C.C. 309 Ors. v/s. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 S.C.C. 309 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which were applicable, admittedly, to the case of respondent No.1 and has held "Hence on the basis of Rule 49 of the C.C.S. "Hence on the basis of Rule 49 of the C.C.S. "Hence on the basis of Rule 49 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, a member of B.S.F., who has (Pension) Rules, 1972, a member of B.S.F., who has (Pension) Rules, 1972, a member of B.S.F., who has resigned from his post after completing qualifying service resigned from his post after completing qualifying service resigned from his post after completing qualifying service of 10 years but less than 20 years would not be liable to of 10 years but less than 20 years would not be liable to of 10 years but less than 20 years would not be liable to get pensionary benefit." get pensionary benefit." get pensionary benefit." 7. There is no other provision in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, giving such benefit to such government employee. Thus, after considering the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which were the rules applicable in the case of respondent No.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that a person, who has not completed 20 years of his service, is : 4 : not entitled to any pension. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No.1 did not retire from the service. He did not even seek V.R.S. He has resigned his job. He resigned the job in the year 1977 and, admittedly, for about 22 years, he did not even make a representation that he is entitled to any pension. In the year 1999, he made a representation and in 2003 moved the Original Application No.682 of 2003 before the Tribunal. 8. Taking overall view of the matter, the respondent No.1 was not entitled to any pension. 9. In the result, therefore, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the C.A.T. in O.A.No.682 of 2003 dated 8.2.2005 is set aside. O.A.No.682 of 2003 is dismissed. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)