Mr.V.K.Puri .... Respondent Through Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. * 1. The petitioners Union of India through Ministry of Defence impugns order dated 22nd January, 2008 passed in O.A No.851/2007, V.K.Puri v. Union of India directing the petitioners to treat the Navy service of the respondents towards qualifying service for grant of prorata pension. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are that the respondent was enrolled in Indian Navy as Boy I on 20th August, 1945 and he served as apprentice till 10th September, 1947 and W.P(C) No.6464/2008 Page 1 of 15 his service was treated as approved war service. Thereafter on 20th March, 1950 respondent joined the Indian navy. 3. As per the rules in the year 1960 on release from the service an employee was entitled to avail the benefit of leave pending retirement and consequently the respondent who was to be discharged from Navy with effect from 19th March, 1960 was given 60 days leave and therefore, he joined MES service with effect from 23rd January, 1960 as store keeper taking his leave into consideration. 4. After joining the MES service on 23rd January, 1960 petitioner sought seniority for the post of store keeper taking into consideration the service rendered in Navy and consequently for the post of Storekeeper Grade II with effect from 20th March, 1964, respondent's services rendered in Navy was treated as qualifying service in MES for all purposes including seniority promotion and other pensionary benefits. 5. In MES the petitioner was further promoted to the post of storekeeper Grade I with effect from 15th March, 1963 and to the post of supervisor Grade II with effect from 14th June, 1965. 6. While serving with MES, in order to join Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, a public sector undertaking respondent submitted his technical W.P(C) No.6464/2008 Page 2 of 15 resignation with effect from 20th May, 1965 which was accepted by order dated 31st July, 1965 and 30th April, 1966. Respondent joined Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd on 26th June, 1965. On joining Hindustan Aeronautics, as the respondent had rendered more than 10 years of service in Navy and MES, seniority, promotion and other benefits were given to the respondent on the basis of past services in Navy and MES. 7. After retiring from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner sought his pensionary benefits. The claim of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits was rejected on 30th May, 2000 primarily on the ground that the respondent was not absorbed in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd in public interest but he had joined the public sector undertaking on his own and that Rule 18 and 19 of CCS (P) Rules, 1972 were not applicable to the respondent as he had joined the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd in 1965. 8. Since the petitioner was not absorbed in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd in public interest and he had joined the PSU on his own, a petition was filed against the order dated 30th May, 2000 being O.A No.491/2001 which was dismissed. Though the claim of the respondent was rejected on the ground that he had not joined the public sector undertaking in public interest and, therefore, he is not entitled for any benefit, the Government of India later on issued a circular dated 20th January, 2004 and 1.3.2004 clarifying and holding W.P(C) No.6464/2008 Page 3 of 15 that pro rata pension is to be allowed to the absorbees in Public Sector Undertakings irrespective of whether their absorption in the public sector organisation was in the public interest or otherwise and even if the resignation was on the volition of the employee, w.e.f 16.5.1967. The OM dated 1.3.2004 had further clarified that even if absorption had taken place prior to 16.6.1967 the benefits will become available to the absorbees w.e.f 1