Naresh Kumar vs Dept.Of Atomic Energy & Ors

1. The appellant was serving in the Indian Air Force as Air Corporal and after putting in fifteen years of service, he received military pension in accordance with the Rules. On 17th April, 1978, the appellant joined Narora Atomic Power Station as a Tradesman E. The power station was under the control of Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The appellant claims that he had a choice to avail pensionery benefits from the Air Force or in the alternative not to take pension from the Air Force but to have the benefit of combined qualifying service for his military and civil services from the Union of India. However, the appellant 2 exercised his option to receive benefits from the Air Force and did not opt for combined benefits of Civil and Military Pension.

2. On 3rd September, 1987, the Government incorporated Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Consequent upon the incorporation, all the employees of Nuclear Power Board (for short `NPB') a constituent unit of Department of Atomic Energy (for short `DAE') were transferred en masse on deputation to the Corporation vide notification dated 4th September, 1987. The conditions of service were finalized and contained in the Office Memorandum dated 26th May, 1994 which came to be challenged 3 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The concerned authorities were required to consider the matter and finally a revised offer was issued to the deputationists vide an Office Memorandum dated 24th December, 1997. In the said Memorandum dated 24th December, 1997, it was clearly stated that last date for changing any pension option was 16th February, 1998. On 13th February, 1998, the appellant exercised his option for drawing pro-rata monthly pension and family pension benefits from the date of absorption. The appellant had joined the service of Corporation on 1st January, 1998 and resigned from the service of the Government of India w.e.f. 31st December, 1997. The appellant wanted to change his option in regard to benefits of 4 pension. Vide his request dated 14th January, 1999, the appellant requested the authorities for change in option from pro-rata pension to pension for combined service put in both under DAE and NPCIL and submitted the requisite option form. However, vide letter dated 18th February, 1999, the appellant was informed that the authorities had not agreed and the Department of Atomic Energy was not willing to permit change in option. The petitioner was drawing independent military pension. On or about 11th April, 2001, the Office Memorandum was issued by the authorities clarifying that rule 18 and 19 of the Central Civil Services (pension) Rules, 1972 (for short `the Rules') shall apply retrospectively to civil and military re-employed pensioners and 5 shall not be subject to any limitation as per provisions of rule 18(3) of the Rules. The appellant who was in third spell of his service was again informed on 24th September, 2001 that his request cannot be agreed to by the Department of Atomic Energy. After waiting for a considerable time, again on 26th July, 2004, the appellant made a representation to the Additional Secretary of DAE for reconsideration of his grievance. This representation also came to be rejected. Dissatisfied, the appellant moved another representation on 4th July, 2006 which met the same fate. The third and final representation submitted by the appellant on 5th September, 2005 was also disposed of by the authorities by passing the following order:

3. On 31st January, 2006, the appellant retired from the service of Corporation and finally filed the Writ Petition on 9th January, 2007 before the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai claiming that his services under the Union of India and Military Service should be permitted to be combined for the purposes of pensionery benefits and option be permitted to be re-exercised by him. The Division Bench of the High Court vide its order dated 4th April, 7 2007 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant while noticing that the Writ Petition suffered from the defect of unexplained delay and laches. Besides that, even on merits, the appellant had no case. It noticed that the representation of the appellant was first rejected in the year 1999 and he filed the Writ Petition in the year 2007 after a lapse of nearly 8 years and the Bench found no explanation whatsoever for his inordinate delay.

5. On the contrary, the arguments on behalf of the respondent is that the appellant had put up a different relief before the authorities concerned while in the Writ Petition before the High Court and even before this Court, the relief prayed for is entirely different. The appellant cannot get combined pension as he had 9 opted for pro-rata pension at a given point of time and now he cannot be permitted to change the option. In any case the option sought for in the writ petition being distinct from the one prayed in the representation, the petitioner cannot be entitled to any relief.

10. For the reasons afore-stated, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.