Service rendered by Appellant to Central Govt in his capacity as Postal Assistant to be considered as qualifying service for calculating pensionary benefits: Apex Court grants benefit to litigant who volunteered technical resignation to serve state govt
Justices Vikram Nath & Satish Chandra Sharma [02-02-2024]

Read Order: VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR [SC-CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1571 OF 2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, February 14, 2024: While granting relief to a postal assistant who had tendered a technical resignation to join the State Govt Services, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that schemes floated by the State Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation and ought to be interpreted widely.

The Appellant was engaged by the Central Government as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division in 1983 and thereafter continued to serve in the aforesaid role up until 16.07.1993. In the interregnum, an invitation for applications for recruitment to the post of Senior Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Government of Gujarat (State Government) came to be issued. Accordingly, the Appellant herein obtained a No-Objection Certificate (NoC) from the Superintendent of Post Office, Gandhinagar Division and thereafter participated in the aforesaid selection process.

In 1993, the Appellant having been selected as Senior Assistant in the State Government, tendered a technical resignation in qua his employment as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division. The Appellant joined as a Senior Assistant in the State Government and thereafter went on to serve the State Government for a period extending to 23 years up until his superannuation. Thereafter, the State Government only paid the Appellant terminal benefits/pensionary benefits to the extent of the Subject Period.

Aggrieved by Impugned Action of the State Government, the Appellant made a representation before the Chief Postmaster General, Gujarat Circle seeking the inclusion of the period of his service with the Central Government i.e., as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division between ‘1983 and ‘1993 to be considered in the grant of terminal benefits / pensionary benefits as per Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 (the “Pension Rules”). However, this representation came to be rejected on the sole ground that the Appellant had tendered an unconditional resignation. The Appellant was constrained to prefer a writ petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed.

It was the appellant’s case that the Appellant was absorbed by the State Government and consequently, in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules, the Appellants’ terminal benefits / pensionary benefits could not be limited to merely the Subject Period but must also include 10 (ten) years of service rendered by him to the Central Government.

“As a precursor, it would be relevant to consider the raison d'etre qua the grant of pension. Similarly, it would be equally important to clarify that pension is earned by a government servant in lieu of tireless service rendered by him / her (as the case may be) during the course of their employment; and often is an important consideration for person(s) seeking government employment. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the raison d'etre qua the grant of pension by the State Government would inextricably be linked to a concentrated effort by the State Government to enable its former employee(s) to tide over the vagaries and vicissitudes associated with old age vide a pension scheme”, the Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed.

The issue before the Bench was whether the Appellants’ subsequent employment with the State Government could be construed to mean that the Appellant had been ‘absorbed’ by the State Government, such that the Appellants’ prior service with the Central Government would be considered as a part of ‘qualifying service’in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules.

The Bench noticed that the Appellant served the Central Government as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division for a period spanning close to a decade and volunteered a technical resignation in order to be able to serve the State Government.

Further, referring to Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules, the Bench noted that the qualifying service for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits / pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules would include prior services rendered by such an person under inter alia the Central Government provided that the employment of such person under the Central Government encompassed an underlying pension scheme; and such person came to be absorbed by the State Government.

Referring to the judgment in Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v. Shree Lal Meena), [LQ/SC/2019/511], the Bench said, “It is well settled that pension scheme(s) floated by the State Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation; and ought to be interpreted widely subject to such interpretation not running contrary to the express provisions of the Pension Rules. Furthermore it would be relevant to underscore that the State Government is a model employer; and ought to uphold principles of fairness and clarity.”

It was also observed that the State Counsel’s argument was narrow and restrictive so as to limit the benefit of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules only to such person(s) who may have explicitly been absorbed by the State Government as against persons such as the Appellant who had been implicitly absorbed by the State Government. The Appellants’ participation in the selection process was prefaced by an NOC from the Central Government; and subsequently was followed by the tender of a technical resignation to the Central Government upon securing employment with the State Government. This interpretation, as pr the Bench, couldn’t be said to be echoed by any express provision of the Pension Rules.

Thus, observing that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules and unfairly deprived the Appellant from seeking inclusion of the period of service rendered to the Central Government as a part of ‘qualifying service’ under the Pension Rules, the Bench allowed the appeal.

The Top Court concluded the matter by observing, “Accordingly, we direct Respondent No. 1 to consider the service rendered by the Appellant to the Central Government in his capacity as Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division to be considered as qualifying service; and thereafter (i) re-calculate the terminal benefits / pensionary benefits accruing in favour of the Appellant; and (ii) transmit the arrears (if any) of such terminal benefits / pensionary benefits to the Appellant within 6 (six) weeks from today i.e., 02.02.20. . Upon making the aforementioned payment, Respondent No. 1 shall be free to seek pro-rata re-imbursement / contribution from Respondent No. 2 in respect of terminal benefits / pensionary benefits paid by Respondent No. 1 for the period pertaining to service rendered by the Appellant for the Central Government.”