CWP No.6084 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6084 of 1991 Date of decision: 01.12.2008 A.R. Chauhan ..Petitioner Versus The Food Corporation of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral) The petitioner joined the service of the Food Department of Government of India on 8.6.1961 as Weighment Clerk. The Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “FCI”) came into existence under the Food Corporation Act, 1964. According to Section 12-A of the said Act, some staff belonging to Food Department of Government of India was transferred to FCI w.e.f. 1.3.1969 in view of Section 12-A of the Food Corporation Act. The petitioner was one of the staff members who was transferred from the Food Department of the Government of India to the FCI. The services of the petitioner were given to the FCI on deputation. Thereafter, vide Notification dated 25.1.1980, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Irrigation, Department of Food, the services of the petitioner and various other employees were allocated to the FCI. The name of the petitioner figured at No.8 in the Notification, which has been annexed as CWP No.6084 of 1991 2 Annexure R-1. As per Notification, services of the petitioner were transferred to the FCI w.e.f. 1.3.1969. The petitioner was retired compulsorily vide Annexure P-1 on attaining the age of 50 years. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had given his option to remain as Central Government employee vide Annexure P-9 dated 17.9.1993 and, therefore, his services could not have been transferred to the FCI. Learned counsel further submits that his GPF account number was also changed pursuant to his option. In this regard reference has been made to Annexure P-12. Learned counsel for the FCI has argued that the services of the petitioner was transferred to the FCI vide Notification Annexure R-1 dated 25.1.1980. The petitioner continued to serve in the Food Corporation of India initially as Assistant Grade II and subsequently as Assistant Grade-I. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner got promotion in the FCI as per rules and regulations pertaining to the FCI. It has lastly been contended by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner never challenged his transfer from the Department of Food, Government of India to the FCI vide Notification dated 25.1.1980 and that has only raised the question of his transfer when he was compulsorily retired vide Annexure P-1 on 5/6.7.1990. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that the services of the petitioner were transferred from the Department of Food, CWP No.6084 of 1991 3 Government of India to the FCI, vide Notification dated 25.1.1980 (Annexure R-1). The transfer of the petitioner was w.e.f. 1.3.1969. As per this Notification, all the employees, whose services were transferred to the FCI from the Central Government, were required to submit their final option within a period of six months from the date of said Notification, failing which the employees were to be governed by the benefits admissible to an FCI employee. The petitioner never gave his option pursuant to the Notification (Annexure R-1) and hence he became an employee of the FCI. The petitioner who was initially appointed as Assistant Grade II in the FCI, was also given promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I, which has also been accepted without any protest or demur. Hence, for all intents and purposes, the petitioner had become an employee of FCI and governed by the rules and regulations of the said Corporation. It is thus clear that the petitioner never challenged his absorption in the FCI nor challenged the Notification (Annexure R-1) and has only sought to challenge the same after he was compulsorily retired vide Annexure P-1. In view of the above, we hold that the petitioner had become an employee of the FCI by virtue of the Notification (Annexure R-1) and cannot be considered to have remained as an employee of the Central Government. Accordingly, the challenge to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on this ground is misconceived and the writ petition is CWP No.6084 of 1991 4 dismissed. As the petitioner is the employee of FCI, therefore, the respondents are directed to release all the admissible retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that there has been a considerable delay in release of his retiral dues and he may be awarded 12% interest on the same. This prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted because the petitioner had been claiming himself to be an employee of the Central Government and not of the FCI. Hence, the FCI is not liable to pay any interest to the petitioner. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 01, 2008 'rajpal'