w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Dhiraj Goswami v/s Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh Through Its Director

Company & Directors' Information:- M G INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301DL2002PTC118047

Company & Directors' Information:- GOSWAMI EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904WB2018PTC229084

Company & Directors' Information:- E-GRADUATE INSTITUTE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302TN2003PTC051577

Company & Directors' Information:- M. S. INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U80301DL2006PTC152100

Company & Directors' Information:- INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH [Active] CIN = U80904UP2012NPL048973

Company & Directors' Information:- P R EDUCATION INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903DL2004PTC129195

Company & Directors' Information:- V C EDUCATION INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903DL2004PTC129201

Company & Directors' Information:- R V EDUCATION INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903DL2004PTC129311

    O.A.No. 060/00051 of 2014

    Decided On, 10 February 2015

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

    By, MEMBER (A)

    For the Applicant: Karan Singla, Advocate. For the Respondent: P.K. Khindria, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Sanjeev Kaushik , Member (J).

1. In this Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 19.8.2013 (A-11) and 30.10.013 (A-13) vide which his claim for protection of pay under Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, has been rejected and has sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him benefit of fixation of pay by protecting his pay in new employment, with all the consequential benefits.

2. The facts are not in dispute and as such a brief description would be sufficient to thrash out the controversy.

3. The applicant initially joined the Indian Coast Guards as Assistant Commandant in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 on 5.7.1999 and resigned from the job w.e.f. 1.4.2005 due to some personal problems, which was accepted under rule 27 A of the CG General Rules, 1986 and Coast Guard Act, 1978. He was drawing salary in that scale at the time of retirement at the stage of Rs.9375/-. He joined service with respondent PGIMER as Assistant Security Officer in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 5.8.2005. However, the applicant remained with respondents only upto 20.8.2009 when he left the job and got appointment as Security Officer with IMTECH, Chandigarh.

4. The claim of the applicant in short is that he should be treated as ex-serviceman and then be extended benefit of fixation of pay by protection of his last pay drawn in Coast Guard in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 in which he was appointed as such. He claims that in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court on 19.12.2005 in CWP No. 13161 of 2001 - Bir Singh & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, a Committee was constituted which gave its report on 10.7.2006 recommending grant of benefit of past military service for fixation of pay by granting one increment for each year of service rendered in Army in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Director General of Posts & Ors. B. Ravindaran and Another, JT 1996 (10) SC 228. Identical claim for protection of pay has also been allowed by this Tribunal in T.A.No. 98-CH-2009 (CWP No.9666 of 2007) Mohinder Singh etc. Vs. Union of India & Others and other cases. He submits that number of ex-servicemen with the respondent Institute have been allowed identical claim and as such there is no reason for extension of same relief to him and as such he has challenged impugned orders on the ground of being discriminatory and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. The respondents plead that the Original Application is hugely barred by the law of limitation and as such may be dismissed on this ground alone. On merits, it is submitted that the provision of CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-Employed Pensioner) Order, 1986 are not attracted in the present case as the applicant was not a pensioner, retired / relieved from the service of the Indian Coast Guards as required under those rules. He had rather resigned from service which would not entitle him to benefits flowing from the said Order of 1986 or the decisions relied upon by him.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on the file.

7. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties would indicate that the applicant had resigned from the job of Indian Coast Guard in 2005 and then joined PGIMER. He is not a pensioner. In any case he left the job of PGIMER also in 2009 and joined IMTECH, Chandigarh. It is only on 21.6.2013 that the applicant has made a representation praying for extension of benefit of fixation of pay as an ex-serviceman which claim was rejected on 19.8.2013 and 31.10.2013. He had left the job of PGIMER in 2009 itself. The Original Application apparently barred by the law of limitation as there is no application for condonation of delay as cause of action, if any, arose in favour of applicant in 2005 when he was not given fixation of pay by protection of last pay drawn in Indian Coast Guard. A belated claim entertained and rejected in 2013 cannot revive the cause of action as same is to be counted from the original cause of action. In that view of the matter the Original Application deserves to be dismissed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) SLR 512 (S.C) - Jagdish Parwani Vs. Union of India & Others, while examining a similar case of protection of pay in earlier department, held that the claim was barred by the law of limitation. Though claim initially lodged in Tribunal was allowed but the Writ Petition was dismissed by Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench and this view was upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court.

8. Even on merit we find that the respondents have taken a specific plea that provisions of CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 are not applicable in his case as he was not relieved from the services of the Indian Coast Guard (Ministry of Defence), rather he had resigned from that service. The applicant has quoted certain examples in which the incumbents had resigned but he has explained in case of Nurses that they had resigned from job on grounds of marriage etc. and as such it could not be said to be a simple resignation but due to circumstances beyond their control. Whereas in this case the applicant resigned from the Indian Coast Guard and joined the respondent PGIMER after few months. He cannot claim any parity with cases quoted by him. We find merit in the plea of the respondents that the resignation submitted by the applicant from the Indian Coast Guards on extreme compassionate grounds could be a ground for his claiming the benefit of fixation of pay upon his re-employment with the respondent Institute. The words 'exceptional cases' and 'extreme compassionate grounds: appearing in Rule 27 of the Coast Guards General Rules, 1986 that deal with procedure for discharge / release or retirement on own request could not be transported or read into Rule 27A of the Rules that deal with resignation from service to avail that benefit under

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the CCS (Fixation of Pay of re-employed Pensioner) Order, 1986. The CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioner) Order, 1986, are applicable only to such persons who are re-employed in civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union Government after retirement on pension gratuity and or contributory provident fund benefits from the service of Union Government including Railways Defence etc. and not to persons reemployed after resignation removal or dismissal who have not received any retirement terminal benefits for the pre-employed service. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Original Application fails and is dismissed. No costs.