Case: THE STATE OF ODISHA Vs. MANJU NAIK

qualifying service prescribed in the Pension Rules must be satisfied to become eligible for invalid pension and the arguments made to the contrary that invalid pension can be claimed under Rule 39 without satisfying the stipulated qualifying service mentioned in the same Rules, do not appeal to us. The respondents husband who had served for lesser years then the 10 years qualifying service, was found entitled by his employers to service gratuity only, because of his premature retirement on the ground of mental incapacitation and this is what is prescribed by the Pension Rules. The dues toward service gratuity was paid accordingly. The Pension Rules definitely envisaged that there could be a situation where an employee may not be eligible for pension benefits for not satisfying the prescribed qualifying service of 10 years. For those with less than 10 years service, the Pension Rules provide for gratuity payment and therefore, it is difficult for us to conclude that for invalid pension, qualifying years of service, can be ignored. 22. The above view of ours is supported by the ratio in Union of India and Another Vs. Bashirbhai R. Khiliji (2007) 6 SCC 16 , where this Court was considering claim for invalid pension for an armed constable in the CRPF who suffered from pyrogenic meningitis and neurosensory deafness (bilateral). In that case, the CRPF personnel was declared unfit for active duty, and he was invalidated from service. He applied to authorities for invalid pension but that was rejected on the ground that he had not completed the qualifying service of 10 years. Instead, he was paid service gratuity. The High Court in that case however, took the view that since the CRPF Constables invalidity was 100 per cent, he was entitled to invalid pension and the stipulation of 10 years of qualifying service could not be invoked to deny him the invalid pension. However, Justice A.K. Mathur, speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court while interpreting similar provisions in the applicable Rules, negated the High Courts view and pronounced on the issue of qualifying service for invalid pension, in the following manner:- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. We are presently concerned with two provisions of the Rules i.e., Rule 38 and 49. Rule 38, as reproduced above, contemplates the invalid pension. The procedure has been mentioned therein i.e. in case an incumbent retires from service on account of bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitated him for the service, then a medical certificate of incapacity shall be given by the authorities concerned and in particular Form 23 the same may be applied before the competent authority. It is true that the qualifying service is not mentioned in Rule 38 but Rule 49 which deals with the amount of pension stipulates that a government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these Rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half months emoluments for every completed six-monthly period of qualifying service. Therefore, the minimum qualifying service of ten years is mentioned in Rule 49. The word qualifying service has been defined in Rule 3(1)(q) of the Rules which read as under: 3. (1)(q) qualifying service means service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these Rules;10. Therefore, the minimum qualifying service which is required for the pension as mentioned in Rule 49, is ten years. The qualifying service has been explained in various memos issued by the Government of India from time to time. But Rule 49 read with Rule 38 makes it clear that qualifying service of pension is ten years and therefore, gratuity is determined after completion of qualifying service of ten years. Therefore, for grant of any kind of pension one has to put in the minimum of ten years of qualifying service. The respondent in the present case, does not have the minimum qualifying service. Therefore, the authorities declined to grant him the invalid pension. But the amount of gratuity has been determined and the same was paid to him. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Underlining added) 23. The above enunciation of the law on requirement of qualifying service for invalid pension by the bench of two judges is reiterated and approved by us. 24. In a case like this, the need for compassion and the compliance of the norms has to be balanced. As earlier noted, the allowable gratuity benefits were granted on account of the respondents husband and after he died, the widow was appointed (on 12.6.2006) in a government job under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Thus, the needed means of sustenance was provided to the deceaseds family. 25. The respondents husband had not served for ten years and was therefore, he disentitled for regular pension. For the same reason, he cannot also be held entitled to invalid pension. The different provisions of the Pension Rules cannot be read in isolation and must be construed harmoniously and the requirement of qualifying service cannot be said to be irrelevant for claiming different service benefits under the same Rules. Here the employee did not satisfy the requirement of qualifying service and therefore the invalid pension could not have been ordered for him, under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules. 26. In the above context, it will bear emphasis that the respondent never prayed for invalid pension for her husband in her O.A. and yet the Tribunal as well as the High Court granted her the unclaimed relief. Such additional munificence, in addition to the job provided to the first respondent under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for the sustenance of the deceaseds family, in our view, was unwarranted and the impugned order cannot be sustained.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. The respondents husband was retired on the ground of mental infirmity and hence the service gratuity was paid and the widow had received the same, without any demur. She never raised any claim for invalid pension either at the time of retirement on 6.7.1996 or even when she approached the Tribunal i.e. 14 years later in the year 2010. Nevertheless, the Tribunal went beyond the prayers in the O.A. No. 18(B)/2010 and ordered for invalid pension for late Sagar Naik and then following his death, ordered for family pension for the widow. In declaring such entitlement the High Court and the Tribunal however ignored the qualifying service of ten years as prescribed in the Pension Rules although the State specifically argued that the qualifying service criterion has to be satisfied not only for the regular pension but also for the invalid pension since both claims are to be considered under the very same Pension Rules21. The condition of qualifying service prescribed in the Pension Rules must be satisfied to become eligible for invalid pension and the arguments made to the contrary that invalid pension can be claimed under Rule 39 without satisfying the stipulated qualifying service mentioned in the same Rules, do not appeal to us. The respondents husband who had served for lesser years then the 10 years qualifying service, was found entitled by his employers to service gratuity only, because of his premature retirement on the ground of mental incapacitation and this is what is prescribed by the Pension Rules. The dues toward service gratuity was paid accordingly. The Pension Rules definitely envisaged that there could be a situation where an employee may not be eligible for pension benefits for not satisfying the prescribed qualifying service of 10 years. For those with less than 10 years service, the Pension Rules provide for gratuity payment and therefore, it is difficult for us to conclude that for invalid pension, qualifying years of service, can be ignored22. The above view of ours is supported by the ratio in Union of India and Another Vs. Bashirbhai R. Khiliji (2007) 6 SCC 16    , where this Court was considering claim for invalid pension for an armed constable in the CRPF who suffered from pyrogenic meningitis and neurosensory deafness (bilateral). In that case, the CRPF personnel was declared unfit for active duty, and he was invalidated from service. He applied to authorities for invalid pension but that was rejected on the ground that he had not completed the qualifying service of 10 years. Instead, he was paid service gratuity. The High Court in that case however, took the view that since the CRPF Constables invalidity was 100 per cent, he was entitled to invalid pension and the stipulation of 10 years of qualifying service could not be invoked to deny him the invalid pension. However, Justice A.K. Mathur, speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court while interpreting similar provisions in the applicable Rules, negated the High Courts view and pronounced on the issue of qualifying service for invalid pension, in the following manner:-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. We are presently concerned with two provisions of the Rules i.e., Rule 38 and 49. Rule 38, as reproduced above, contemplates the invalid pension. The procedure has been mentioned therein i.e. in case an incumbent retires from service on account of bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitated him for the service, then a medical certificate of incapacity shall be given by the authorities concerned and in particular Form 23 the same may be applied before the competent authority. It is true that the qualifying service is not mentioned in Rule 38 but Rule 49 which deals with the amount of pension stipulates that a government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these Rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half months emoluments for every completed six-monthly period of qualifying service. Therefore, the minimum qualifying service of ten years is mentioned in Rule 49. The word qualifying service has been defined in Rule 3(1)(q) of the Rules which read as under:3. (1)(q) qualifying service means service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these Rules;10. Therefore, the minimum qualifying service which is required for the pension as mentioned in Rule 49, is ten years. The qualifying service has been explained in various memos issued by the Government of India from time to time. But Rule 49 read with Rule 38 makes it clear that qualifying service of pension is ten years and therefore, gratuity is determined after completion of qualifying service of ten years. Therefore, for grant of any kind of pension one has to put in the minimum of ten years of qualifying service. The respondent in the present case, does not have the minimum qualifying service. Therefore, the authorities declined to grant him the invalid pension. But the amount of gratuity has been determined and the same was paid to him. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .23. The above enunciation of the law on requirement of qualifying service for invalid pension by the bench of two judges is reiterated and approved by us24. In a case like this, the need for compassion and the compliance of the norms has to be balanced. As earlier noted, the allowable gratuity benefits were granted on account of the respondents husband and after he died, the widow was appointed (on 12.6.2006) in a government job under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Thus, the needed means of sustenance was provided to the deceaseds family25. The respondents husband had not served for ten years and was therefore, he disentitled for regular pension. For the same reason, he cannot also be held entitled to invalid pension. The different provisions of the Pension Rules cannot be read in isolation and must be construed harmoniously and the requirement of qualifying service cannot be said to be irrelevant for claiming different service benefits under the same Rules. Here the employee did not satisfy the requirement of qualifying service and therefore the invalid pension could not have been ordered for him, under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules26. In the above context, it will bear emphasis that the respondent never prayed for invalid pension for her husband in her O.A. and yet the Tribunal as well as the High Court granted her the unclaimed relief. Such additional munificence, in addition to the job provided to the first respondent under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for the sustenance of the deceaseds family, in our view, was unwarranted and the impugned order cannot be sustained.