The appellant filed a writ petition tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India on October 19, 1984 in the Madras High Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to grant him pro rata pension and all other benefits admissible under the revised Memorandum dated June 16, 1967.
3036 as retirement benefits in terms of the Memorandum dated November 10, 1960.
The appellant retired from the public undertaking on April 1, 1984.
The benefit of the revised terms and companyditions of absorption as companytained in the Government Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 was denied to the appellant on the short ground that he was absorbed in the public undertaking prior to the date of companying into force of the said Memorandum.
admissible in respect of the service rendered under the government was disbursable only from the date the government servant would have numbermally superannuated had be companytinued in service.
The tribunal by its judgment dated June 14, 1988 dismissed the application and rejected the claim of the appellant.
The pro rata pension, gratuity, etc.
The operative features of the revised instructions were as under A permanent government servant with number less than 10 years qualifying service on absorption in public undertaking was eligible for pro rata pension and death cum retirement gratuity based on the length of his qualifying service under government till the date of absorption.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.6.1988 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in T.A. No.
On the date of appellants permanent absorption in the public undertaking the retirement benefits were regulated by Memorandum dated November 10, 1960 issued by the Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure , New Delhi.
The writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras.
666 of 1993.
The pension was to be calculated on the basis of average emoluments immediately before absorption.
The Government of India subsequently issued Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 providing revised terms and companyditions of absorption in Central Public Sector Undertakings but restricted the revised benefits only to those who were absorbed on or after June 1.6, 1967.
As an interim measure the High Court directed that the appellant be paid 50 per cent of the pro rata pension and other pensionary benefits 1083 under the Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 from the date of his absorption in the public undertaking.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
N. Krishnamani, T. Raja and Pravir Choudhary for the Appellant.
The appellant was serving the Audit Department Defence Service of the Government of India as Substantive Upper Division Clerk.
1082 According to the said Memorandum the retirement benefits for service rendered by a government servant before his absorption in a public undertaking, were admissible equal to what the government would have companytributed had the individual been on companytributory provident fund terms, with 2 simple interest thereon.
He was sent on foreign service to Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. public sector undertaking on January 9/10, 1961.
He was permanently absorbed in the public undertaking with effect from August 1, 1964.
Altaf Ahmad, Addl.
Solicitor General, V.N. Ganpule, Hemant Sharma and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted.
12 of 1988.
It is number disputed that the appellant, having joined Central Government service on July 25, 1949, had companypleted 15 years of pensionable government service.
