JUDGMENT
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research ( CSIR ) has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the setting aside of a judgment dated 13th March, 2003 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ( Tribunal ) in O.A. No. 1829 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the Respondent and quashed the orders dated 1st/5th September, 2000 and 28th February, 2001 issued by the CSIR declining the request of the Respondent for counting the past service rendered by him in the Food Corporation of India ( FCI ) and National Coal Development Corporation ( NCDC ) (which is at present Coal India Ltd.) prior to his absorption in the CSIR, for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits.
2. The Respondent joined the service of NCDC on 2nd March, 1963. Thereafter, with effect from 7th October, 1966 he joined the FCI as Accounts Assistant. He was promoted as Assistant Accountant in July, 1972 and was confirmed on that post on 24th/29th January, 1973. He was further promoted as Junior Accounts Officer (Selection Grade) on 25th January, 1983 and was confirmed in that post.
3. The CSIR issued a letter on 18th September, 1982 to the Chairman and Managing Director, FCI asking him to send suitable nominations for filling up on deputation some of the posts of Under Secretaries/Administrative Officers (Grade-I) in the CSIR. Pursuant to his application, the Respondent was appointed as Under Secretary on deputation on foreign service in CSIR for a period of two years with effect from 16th August, 1983. On expiry of the period of deputation, the applicant was absorbed as Under Secretary on regular basis in CSIR with effect from 15th May, 1987.
4. The FCI wrote a letter dated 30th March/16th April, 1988 to the CSIR stating that the terminal benefits of the Respondent payable to him by the FCI could be transferred on pro-rata basis to the CSIR for the period the respondent the served under the FCI subject to CSIR agreeing to such transfer. The CSIR wrote to the FCI on 8th July, 1988 conveying that they had no objection in accepting the pensionary liability in respect of the Respondent on the basis of continued service. The CSIR wrote to the FCI on 21st April, 1989 asking the latter to disburse to the CSIR the pro-rata gratuity payable to the Respondent for facilitating the counting of his past service rendered in FCI. Thereafter on 25th May, 1989 a sum of Rs.31,770/- was sent by the FCI to the CSIR towards pro- rata gratuity and leave salary of the Respondent.
5. The Respondent on 12th November, 1987 wrote to FCI requesting that the past service rendered by him in NCDC and FCI be counted for calculating his pensionary benefits. Nearly three years thereafter, on 22nd March 1990, the CSIR issued an Office Memorandum ( OM ) stating that there were no Government of India orders under which the service rendered by the employees in Public Sector Undertakings ( PSU ) on their absorption in the Government or the CSIR can be counted towards their pensionary benefits. The Respondent was given an opportunity to produce any Government of India orders in support of his request for counting the past service for pensionary benefits.
6. In response thereto, the Respondent submitted a representation dated 25th May, 1990 regarding the counting of his past service in NCDC and FCI. The CSIR issued another OM dated 25th July, 1991 regretting its inability to accept the Respondent s request. This was reiterated in its letter dated 1st/5th September, 2000. A further representation dated 28th September, 2000 made by the Respondent which was rejected on 28th February, 2001 by the Chairman, CSIR That is how the Respondent approached the Tribunal for quashing the said letters. The Tribunal allowed the respondent s application by the impugned judgment dated 13th March, 2003, which has been challenged in the present petition.
7. While directing issue of notice in this petition 29th July, 2003, the Division Bench of this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The said interim order was made absolute on 7th February, 2005. During the course of hearing of the case on 22nd October, 2007, this Court required the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to place on record the counter affidavit filed by the CSIR before the Tribunal as well as the decision taken by the Governing Body of the CSIR pursuant to the communication dated 23rd June, 1999 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, E.V. Branch to the CSIR. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner has placed on record the documents as directed by this Court.
8. The Tribunal noticed that the Governing body of the CSIR in its meeting held on 22nd December, 1976 decided to count the past service rendered by its employees in other organizations including PSUs for computing the pensionary benefits payable by CSIR. However, the Governing body decided that past cases should not be reopened and only pending requests should be considered. A circular implementing this decision was issued by the CSIR on 9th February, 1977. It was stated that the decision as to the benefit of counting his past service for pensionary benefits was applicable to those employees who had joined CSIR service before 21st April, 1972. A further circular was issued by the CSIR on 18th January, 1983 notifying that service rendered in central and state autonomous bodies and PSUs would qualify for counting past service.
9. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent that the circular dated 9th February 1977 stipulating a said cut-off date of 21st April 1972 was unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent referred to two other identical cases where the past service had been counted for pensionary benefits. One was that of Dr. V.B. Reddy, an Assistant of CSIR who had gone on deputation to a State PSU and was absorbed there. When he was denied calculation of the pensionary benefit on the basis of his combined past service in a State PSU, he successfully challenged the said action before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the counting of his past service.
10. The same benefit was also given to Dr. N.K. Jain, another employee of CSIR. It may be mentioned here that this Court in Director General, CSIR v. Dr. (Prof.) N.K. Jain SLJ 2002(1) 194 directed that past service of a amployye of the CSIR in a central autonomous body should be counted for computation of pensionary benefits. The Tribunal struck down the impugned orders dated 1st/5th September, 2000 and 28th February, 2001. The Petitioner was directed to issue a fresh order regarding the Respondent s pension and other retiral benefits after taking into account his past service in the two PSUs. Further payments after making due adjustments were to be made to the Respondent within three months of the order.
11. The Tribunal found that there was nothing on record to show that the Petitioner had even made an attempt to treat the Respondent s case as a special case. In fact the CSIR was found to have resoled from its earlier acceptance of the Respondent s request for counting his past service.
12. Ms.K.Iyer, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no justification for the Tribunal s direction to count the past service of the Respondent for pensionary benefits and that this would, apart from creating administrative difficulties also give rise to other similar claims which would impose an enormous financial burden on the CSIR. It was further sought to be contended that the CSIR can grant only so much benefit as is permitted by the Ministry of Finance. In the absence of an approval by that Ministry, there was no discretion in the CSIR to take a decision to count the past service. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner expressed an apprehension that the order of the Tribunal, if upheld by this Court, might constitute a precedent for other similar claims.
13. The Respondent who appeared in person pointed out that he had retired from the services of CSIR in August 1990 and the CSIR refunded the amount of pensionary liability received from FCI to the Respondent on the ground that PSU service did not count for pension under the Pension Rules of the Government of India. He further pointed that he had received the amount under protest. He further submitted that if this Court were to uphold the order of the Tribunal then with a view to implementing the said judgment, the Petitioner CSIR might require the Respondent to return the pensionary liability which had been refunded to him together with interest. He, accordingly, submitted that if he was required to pay interest on such sum, equally the CSIR should also be asked to pay interest on the pension withheld from the Respondent as a result of not counting his past service.
14. A perusal of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing body of the CSIR held on 27th July, 1998 shows that as regards the question of counting of past service of the Respondent, the decision was in fact approved by the Governing body subject to concurrence of Finance Minstry/Member (Finance). Further, the Action Taken Note submitted to the 147th Meeting of the Governing body held on 9th December 1999 states in the action column that the matter was referred to the Ministry of Finance for its concurrence but was not agreed to as implementation of the CSIR s proposal will have widespread repercussions. In the view of this Court, apart from this bald statement regarding widespread repercussions, there was no justification given for denying the Respondent his past service in the PSUs for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
15. In its counter affidavit filed by the Respondent before the Tribunal dated 23rd November 2001, the only explanation given by the CSIR was that it was a mistake. The following passages in the counter affidavit are relevant in this context: That the respondent who had inadvertently accepted the request of the applicant to count his services rendered at FCI/NCDC for pensionary benefits immediately rectified the same as soon as the same mistake came to light. It is settled principle of law that the administrative errors can be rectified in order not to perpetuate the same mistakes any further.
It is submitted that due to certain inadvertence in interpretation of the Government s instructions with regard to counting of past services rendered by an employee for the pensionary benefits the liabilities of the applicant was called from FCI. However, when in actual the applicant s admissibility was considered, doubts were expressed by the concerned divisions. The council in order to clarify their doubts referred to the Government of India for their opinion.
The Government of India vide their letter of the August, 1990 opined that service rendered in Public Sector Undertaking is not counted along with service rendered under the Government for the purpose of pension and that CPF benefits received from FCI should be returned to the applicant.
In pursuance to the same, the applicant was informed vide OM dated 22.3.1990 and 25.7.1991.
16. We find that apart from the vague justification for the decision of the CSIR to deny the benefit of past service to the Respondent, there is absolutely nothing in the record to indicate the reasons for the decision that grant of benefit to the Respondent would have widespread repercussions. The record does not show what are the repercussions and whether there were in monetary terms. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner was also unable to throw light on the legal basis for the denial of benefit of counting of past service to the Respondent.
17. In our view, the CSIR took a well-informed decision in the first place to permit the Respondent to count his past service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It was on the acceptance of the proposal by the FCI and the CSIR that the Respondent joined the services of the CSIR. This was in fact an assurance held out to the Respondent that he would not lose his past service if he joined the services of the CSIR. The subsequent decision not to grant him the benefit of his past service was, in the circumstances, arbitrary and unreasonable. There appears no rational justification for denying the respondent the benefit of his past service with the NCDC and FCI. The plea of financial burden has remained unsubstantiated by the CSIR with any facts and figures. In any event this Court does not consider that a sufficient justification for denying the respondent the benefit of his past service for the purposes of computing his pensionary and retiral benefits.
18. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no grounds have been made out by the petitioner for persuading this Court to interfere with the well- reasoned order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is without merits. As regards the plea that the decision of the Tribunal should be confined to the facts of the present case, we may observe that it is trite that each case of grievance of arbitrary treatment has to be determined ultimately on facts.
19. While dismissing the writ petition this Court considers it, in the interests of justice, to issue the following directions:
(i) The impugned order dated 13th March 2003 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1829 of 2001 is affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed;
(ii) The Petitioner CSIR will implement the judgment of the Tribunal by reworking the pensionary and other retiral benefits of the respondent from the date of his retirement in accordance with the impugned judgment and issuing appropriate orders on or before March 1, 2008;
(iii) The petitioner CSIR will pay to the respondent the amount constituting the arrears of the reworked pension and other retiral benefits from the date of his retirement along with 12% simple interest per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment which in any event will not be later than March 1, 2008; the revised pension will in any event become payable not later than March 1, 2008;
(iv) Any delay in making the payment of the arrears of the revised pensionary and retiral benefits to the Respondent beyond March 1, 2008 will result in the CSIR, apart from being liable for contempt of court, having to pay to the Respondent penal interest @ 18% per annum for the period of delay;
(v) The Petitioner will pay to the Respondent costs of Rs.5,000/- within a period of four weeks from today and in any event not later than December 31, 2007.
20. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid directions.
21. List for compliance on 4th April, 2008.