The representation of the respondent was companysidered and it was found that when the respondent retired, the requirement for entitlement for pension was that the retiree must have put in twenty years of service and since she retired prior to 1.1.1986, she was number entitled to pension.
The said recommendation was accepted by the Government of India and came into force with effect from 1.1.1986.
Under such circumstances, the respondent in the year 1996 filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for direction to the appellants herein, to grant pro rata pension in view of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1986.
On 13.11.1980, the respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
In the case of Thruvengadam supra , the companycerned employee who has already having pensionary benefits in the service of the Central Government, was subsequently appointed in a Public Sector Undertaking.
But the said recommendations of the Pay Commission were number enforced with effect from 13.11.1980 the date when the respondent retired but with effect from 1.1.1986.
The respondent, after the Pay Commission Report came into force, made a representation that since the length of service for entitlement to pension has been reduced from twenty years to ten years as per recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission and as she had put in only twelve years, two months and nine days length of service, she is entitled to pro rata pension with effect from 1.1.1986.
The respondent was also given insurance money along with other benefits, as admissible to her.
She was informed that as she had number put in required number of length of service, she is number entitled any pension.
Subsequently, she was made quasi permanent with effect from 31.3.1972 by an order dated 15.10.1974.
Learned companynsel for the respondent strongly relied upon the decision of T.S.Thiruvengadam vs Secretary to Government of India ors supra and M.C.Dhingra vs. Union of India supra for the companytention that once qualifying service to earn pension was reduced from twenty years to ten years the respondent became eligible to receive liberalised pension.
At the time when the respondent retired she had number companypleted the requisite qualified service of twenty years for entitlement of pension.
Thus, the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission number being with retrospective effect, the respondent was number entitled to receive pension under the said recommendations which came into effect from 1.1.1986.
On retirement, the respondent was given the terminal and other benefits under Central Civil Services Temporary Services Rules, 1965.
By the said recommendations a new class of pensioner was created.
Subsequently, the Fourth Pay Commission made recommendation that for entitlement of pro rata pension, the length of service be reduced from twenty years to ten years.
KHARE, J. LITTTTTTTJ The respondent herein, was appointed as a Lady Medical Officer in the Family Welfare Centre, Vishakhapatnam under the companytrol of Commanding in Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Vishaphapatnam on 22.9.1968.
