High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 586/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY
Legal Reasoning
This writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has put to challenge the order, dated 16.11.2012, passed, in Original Applicati on No. 322/12, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, d eclining to issue directions to the respondents to pay family pension to the pet itioner, whose husband died, on 19.12.2004, while working as a Group ’D’ employe e in the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, at Diphu, Karbi Anglong. 2. Heard Mr. D. M. Thakuria, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and M s. B. Das, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1. We have also heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, and Mr. U. K. Nair, learned amicus curiae. None has appeared on behalf of the remai ning respondents. 3. Nehru Yuva Kendra (in short, ’NYK’), Karbi Anglong Diphu, was a scheme m eant for youth welfare, which was devised by the Department of Sports (Youth Ser vice), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. By an order , dated 30.12.1986, issued by the Youth Coordinator, NYK, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, the petitioner’s husband, namely, Biren Ch. Kalita, was appointed as Group ’D’ s taff (Peon-cum-Chowkidar), w.e.f. 11.10.1985, in the Nehru Yuva Kendra, Diphu, K arbi Anglong, in the Pay Scale of Rs. 198-3-220-Eb-3-252/- p.m. This order, dat ed 30.12.1986, made it clear that the post was temporary and that the appointee would not be treated as regular employee. With effect from 01.04.1987, the Nehr u Yuva Kendra was abolished and in its place was born Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangatha n (hereinafter referred to as the ’Sangathan’), which was made an autonomous bod y inasmuch the said Sangathan came to be registered as a society under the Socie ties Registration Act. 4. Following an order, which had been passed by the learned Central Adminis trative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No. 1428/91, an order was issued by t he Sangathan, on 04.09.1996, which, being self-explicit, is reproduced below: (cid:28)OFFICE ORDER In pursuance of the Hon’ble CAT, Ernakulam Bench judgement delivered in case No. OA 1428/91, dated 01.07.1993, filed by Shri N. G. Narayanan Nair and others, th e Peon-cum-Chowkidars who joined Govt. of India prior to formation of the Sangat han, are abrorbed in the Sangathan w.e.f. 01.04.1987, the date from which the Sa ngathan came into existence, in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. They shall be under the administrative control of the Sangathan and they will dr aw their Pay and allowances from the Sangathan. They will be governed by the ru les and regulations of Govt. of India, as admissible from time to time. The procedure to be followed in respect of remaining issues especially concernin g deduction on account of GPF, CGHS, etc. will be communicated in due course. (cid:29) We have read the office order, dated 04.09.1996, aforementioned and re-r 5. ead the same with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, appeari ng before us, including the learned amicus curiae, and we have found that, in te rms of the office order, dated 04.09.1996, all Peon-cum-Chowkidars, who had join ed NYK prior to formation of the Sangathan, were absorbed in the Sangathan, w.e. f. 01.04.1987, in the Pay Scale of Rs. 750-940/-. The office order, dated 04.09. 1996, aforementioned further shows that the appointees, covered by the said offi ce order, were placed under the administrative control of the Sangathan and they were to draw their pay and allowances from the Sangathan. 6. What is of immense importance to note, while considering the office orde r, dated 04.09.1996, aforementioned is that this order also clarified that the a ppointees, covered by the office order, dated 04.09.1996, shall be governed by t he rules and regulations of the Government of India as admissible from time to t ime. This, in turn, clearly shows that as early as on 04.09.1996, the Sangathan adopted the rules and regulations of the Government of India as were admissible , at that point of time (i.e., 04.09.1996), to the employees of the Government o f India. In other words, with the issuance of the office order, dated 04.09.199 6, aforementioned, all the Peon-cum-Chowkidars, including the petitioner’s husba nd, became employees of the Sangathan and were to be governed by the rules and r egulations of the Government of India, which were applicable to the employees of the Government of India. As the employees of the Government of India are entitled to pension, it 7. logically follows, in the light of the office order, dated 04.09.1996, aforement ioned, that an employee, covered by the office order, dated 04.09.1996, also bec ame entitled to receive pension and pensionary benefits as may be applicable to the Government of India’s employees, who were in the Pay Scale of Rs. 715-940/-. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s husband, Biren Ch. Kalita, ha d been functioning as a Group ’D’ employee w.e.f. 11.10.1985 and his service, in terms of the office order, dated 04.09.1996, came to be regularized w.e.f. 01.0 4.1987, in the Pay Scale of Rs. 750-940/-, the present petitioner, as widow of B iren Ch. Kalita, is entitled to pension and pensionary benefits. When the pensi on has been made available to persons similarly situated as the petitioner’s hus band, though may be working in a different State, there is no valid and/or justi fiable reason for denying to the petitioner the benefit of pension. By no means , therefore, the Office Order, dated 04.09.1996, can be read as an order in pers onam in respect of the applicants of OA 1428/1991, which was decided by the lear ned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench; rather, the Office Order, dated 04.09.1996, is clearly an order in rem and would, obviously, cover a perso n, such as, the petitioner’s husband. 9. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we have not b een able to persuade ourselves to agree to the conclusion reached by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, that the office order, dated 0 4.09.1996, is an order in personam and the petitioner would, therefore, not be e ntitled to receive pension. 10. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, the impugned order, dated 16.11.2002, passed by the learned Central A dministrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, is hereby set aside and the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2, namely, Director General, Nehru Yuva Kendra San gathan, Delhi, is hereby directed to make pension available to the petitioner in terms of the relevant rules as may be applicable to a Group ’D’ employee of the Government of India. The pension and pensionary benefits shall be made availab le to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.12.2004 inasmuch as her husband died, as already mentioned above, on 19.12.2004. 11. As regards the Provident Fund, which the petitioner has been receiving, it is clarified that the same shall be adjusted as against the pension, which sh e may be entitled to receive. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands di sposed of. 13. able assistance rendered to the Court. 14.
Decision
No order as to costs. Let the learned amicus curiae be paid of sum of Rs. 5,000/- for his valu