JUDGMENT
A.K. Misra, Member (A)
1. By the present O.A., the applicant has claimed that the pension admissible to him at Rs. 1265/- per month should be allowed w.e.f. 31.7.86 instead of provisional pension of Rs. 1131/- being drawn by him since the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.7.86. He also claimed consequential relief of arrears of pension alongwith interest and revised commuted value of pension alongwith interest.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings on record have been perused.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant retired from the Income Tax department on 31.7.86 as Income Tax Officer (in short I.T.O). He joined the Income Tax department as Upper Division Clerk (in short UDC) on 11.2.57. Prior to that he was working as Enquiry Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies department, Government of U.P. under over all control of the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of U.P., Lucknow. He worked in that department from 14.9.48 to 31.12,53 after which he was retrenched from Food and Civil Supplies department, Government of U.P., as the said department was wound up. On retirement from the Income Tax Department, the pension of the applicant was fixed provisionally at Rs. 1131/- per month. While fixing the provisional pension, the applicant’s services rendered under the State Government in the Food and Civil Supplies department were not verified and accordingly his services of about five years and three months were not taken into account in spite of letters and reminders written from the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad to the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of U.P., Lueknow, requesting that the services of the applicant rendered in his department he verified and service book of the applicant be sent to the Income Tax department. Nothing could be done in the Food and Civil Supplies department Ultimately, the services of the applicant rendered in the Food and Civil Supplies department from 14.9.98 to 31.12.53 were certified as per certificate dated 11.5.89 furnished to the Income Tax department by the Food and Civil Supplies department. However, this certificate was not furnished on the basis of any independent verification, but was given on the basis of an affidavit sworn by the applicant and furnished to the State Government. On the basis of this certificate, which was given by the State Government on the applicant’s own affidavit, his claim for enhancement of pension was not admitted by the Zonal Accounts Officer (in short Z. A.O.), Allahabad. It may be stated here that subsequently a representation was made by the applicant on 16.11.95 requesting that his provisional pension be revised to Rs. 1265/- per month on the basis of the certificate rendered by him. The applicant has also relied on the circular letter dated 31.7.82, which states that in the case of the employees who have been retrenched from service in the State Government and have been employed subsequently under the Central Government, the services rendered with the State Government should be taken into account for the purposes of computing the qualifying service for fixation of pension. An extract of the circular letter dated 31.7.82 has been furnished as Annexure-10 to the O.A.
4. In the counter, it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the applicant could not prove his claim in so far as the services rendered in the Food and Civil Supplies department were concerned. Further, it has been stated that the certification of the service of the applicant with the State Government based on the applicant’s own affidavit is not in accordance with the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1974 (in short Rules of 1974). It was further submitted that the service book of the applicant for the period 14.9.48 to 31.12.53, during which he worked in the Food and Civil Supplies department, was called for by a letter dated 13.11.91 addressed to District Supply Officer (in short D.S.O.) Shahjahanpur. Simultaneously, a letter was also written to the Z.A.O., Allahabad, seeking clarification on the treatment to be given to break in service for the period 1.1.54 to 10.2.57. Since the applicant was retrenched from the State Government on 31.12.53 and joined in the Income Tax department on 13.2.57, the Z.A.O., clarified that the services rendered with the Slate Government can be counted only when the conditions prescribed under GID No. 6 of Rules, 1974 are fulfilled and further that break in service can be condoned only if it is covered under Rule 28 of Rules of 1974. The I.T.O. Mau, by his letter dated 10.4.92 also required the applicant to send a certified copy of the retrenchment order so as to satisfy the conditions laid down in GID No. 6 of Rules, 1974. The Z.A.O., Allahabad, by his letter dated 14/15.5.92 clarified that the fact that applicant was retrenched by the State Government, has to be recorded in his service book under proper attestation of the competent authority. The applicant had failed to furnish any paper showing that he was retrenched from the State Government. It has further been stated on behalf of the respondents in the Counter that the services rendered in the State Government cannot be counted automatically for the purposes of pension. Further it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the applicant did not claim that his services with the State Government should be counted during the entire period from February ’57 till he retired on 31.7.86. Further the Z.A.O. clarified by his letter dated 14/15.5.92 that the certificate issued by the Food and Civil Supplies department on the basis of the applicant’s own affidavit, was not sufficient for taking into account his service rendered with the State Government for the purposes of pension. The verification in this regard has to be made by the Food and Civil Supplies department, independently, on the basis of the records available with them. Further, it was brought to my notice that the Dy. Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies department by his letter dated 25.11.92 addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad clarified that the discharge certificate issued to the applicant by the Food and Civil Supplies department be obtained in order to verify his services with the State Government. Accordingly, the applicant was asked by letter dated 14.12.92 to furnish the discharge certificate issued to him by the Food and Civil Supplies department at the time of his retrenchment. A reminder dated 19.1.92 was also issued to him. The applicant however, by letter dated 28.1.93, informed that the discharge certificate was not available with him and made a request to obtain the same from the office of Commissioner, Income Tax, Lucknow, by whom he was appointed in February ’57 as UDC. The said discharge certificate, if at all furnished by the applicant, also could not be traced in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. It was also brought to my notice that the Dy. Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies department, by his letter dated 26.2.88 addressed to the Commissioner, Income Tax, Allahabad informed that D.S.O. Shahjahanpur has informed that no documents relating to service rendered by the applicant in the Food and Civil Supplies department between 14.9.48 and 31.12.53 were available in his office and accordingly it was not possible for him to certify or verify the services rendered by the applicant in the Food and Civil Supplies department.
5. In the Rejoinder filed by the applicant, it has been stated that his claim for consideration of the services rendered by him with the Food and Civil Supplies department could not have been made in the beginning i.e. on or about 1957 in view of the fact that the consideration of his services rendered in the Central Govt. or State Govt. could be taken into account for the purposes of pension only by notification No. G.L. Department of Personnel and AP letter No. 3(2)PN(A/79) dated 31.3.82. Accordingly, it has been pointed-out that such a claim could be made by the applicant only after 313.82 i.e. three years and six months prior to his superannuation. Apart from this, other points raised in the O.A., have been reiterated in the Rejoinder.
6. In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of me considered view that the claim of the applicant cannot succeed. In the first place, the service rendered by the applicant between 14.9.48 and 31.12.53 could not be verified independently from any source. The applicant himself was not able to furnish the discharge certificate from the Food and Civil Supplies department. The Food and Civil Supplies department also did not have any papers or documents on the basis of which they could verify/certify the services rendered by the applicant. In Income Tax department also, the applicant did not appear to have furnished the discharge certificate at the time of appointment as UDC in February ’57. The certificate issued by the Food and Civil Supplies department certifying the applicant’s service based on the applicant’s own affidavit, did not have any sanctity for the simple reason that the affidavit is a self-serving document. In absence of any certification or independent verification of the service rendered by the applicant in the Food and Civil Supplies department, his services rendered with that department could not have been counted for the purposes of pension. The decision of Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal reported in (1994) 28 ATC 40 relied-upon on behalf of the applicant also does not help him. In the case of N.S. Nair v. Union of India (supra) the Ernakulam Bench was not dealing with a matter where the applicant on retrenchment from the State Government had taken employment under the Central Govt. and was staking his claim for taking into consideration the services rendered by him in the State Government for the purposes of calculating pension admissible to him. Hence, the decision of Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, it is seen that the applicant for the first time claimed in 1987 that his services rendered with the Stale Govt. should be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the pension. The applicant joined Income Tax department in February ’57 and, could have, therefore, made a claim in this regard, in 1957 itself. Even if the contention of the applicant that this claim could not have been made prior to 31.1.82 is accepted, it was open to the applicant to make a claim in this regard in 1982 itself i.e. prior to his retirement. The applicant did not make any claim in this regard from April ’82 till the end of 1987. Therefore, for five years the applicant himself remained sailent. The provisions of Rule 59 (i) (a) (iv) and the provisions of Rule 59 (i)(b)(ii) when read together also do not help the applicant, because the said rules provide that the services of the applicant can be verified on the basis of a written statement given by the applicant on plain paper alongwith a declaration as to truth of the statement annexing therewith all documentary evidence and all relevant information. Rule 59(i)(b)(ii) provides that while effort shall be made to complete the verification of service as provided in Clause (a) of Section 59 (i) any omissions or deficiencies including that portion of service shown as unverified in the service book which it has not been possible to verify in accordance with the procedure laid down in Clause (a) of Section 59(i) shall be ignored and service qualifying for pension shall be determined on the basis of entries in the service book. Therefore, it will be
seen that Rule 59 of Pension Rules of 1974 also docs not help the applicant. It may also he stated here that the service hook of the applicant in the State Government also could not be procured on the basis of which his services with the Food and Civil Supplies Department could be verified. In the light of these observations, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.