High Court Karnataka High Court

Indian Institute Of Astrophysics vs Dr G.S.D Babu on 15 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Indian Institute Of Astrophysics vs Dr G.S.D Babu on 15 December, 2010
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
' V' IVI/s;'SUN»DARASwAMY"& RAMADAS)

 '  -   " 

. S/O.S'RI €,}.C'£-IRISTOPHER
 'AGED ABOUT 66 YRS,
A ' IRETD. SCIENTIST E.
 "«INDIAN INSTITUTE 01+'
_ ASTROPHYSICS),
 "BANGALORE.
.. " P'LAT.N0.01 I, GANGA BLOCK,
'-NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE,
" KORAMANGALA.

39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE ISWDAY OF DECEMBER. 2010 
PRESENT

THE II0I\I'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.G.SAB_HAH_I.3f '  

AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B'.'=\z.IfiACAR;_gi'TH'NA V
WRIT PETITION No.3243:b,12o10-IS-'C.A"T).":.:  

BETWEEN:

INDIAN INST':TTU3_:'E   
ASTR0PHYSIC.S,i._ 5. '
   

BANGAI;ORE_--"r32?s0..034.-.  _ '
REPBY ITS"DIRECT.0.R  _   _
NOW REPRESEN*TED--BY  
ADNIINISTRATIVE OF_'FI~f_3ER.7'  PETITIONER

.» {BY SR1 PRADEEB S.SAwKAR, ADV. FOR

DI~.C:..S.p.B_.AB7I._I;':

BANGALORE. . . .RF.ZSPONDENT

=i€=i<=£==i<*

»/..

 



_ :3 _
THIS WRIT PETITION Is FILED PRAYING TO QUASH
ORDER DATED 6/7/2010 VIBE ANNEXURE3 C PASSED BY

THE CENTRAL AEMINISTRATIVE TRIBIINAL. BAT\Io;LII;o"Ij'UEI\I3TLY:"I«-~. I-
I:)IsIvIIss TIIE APPLECATION FILED BY THE REs--I»IojI\ID'ENTt  "

THIS PETITION BEING REsER*»rEE§_'AT;ID'oo9/2009 filed by the respondent has been

d1″reCt.ing’Vthétvpetitioner herein to recalculate the

“p_eIisi_oIII3_rVy,V dbedizefrts after granting respondent five more

years,’ of Weigi’I3t_a§;§e and to pay consequential benefits to him

.’Wj’thiI1 a v}’)A€I1’i()d of three months and in the event of there

“‘oein§t”de1ay in the payment, to pay interest at the rate of 12%

2. The respondent. had filed the app]i.<:ati.orI before the
'I'rihuI'Ia1 Cofltfifldiflg that he had served for a period of nine

years in U.P.Stai,e Observatoly, Nainital and had carried

E
Z;

X;

_3n

research work in Astrophysics and thereafter, he joinedhthe

services of the petitioner herein on 13/ 2 / 1978 as a Revsearch

Associate and in 2003 he retired on attaining _

superannuation and had coinpletedmtwentyi”five::’ygears’–Aof

service in the institute. According him, he lr:.a.d..lbeerilfp,aid;v, if

the terminal benefits by ta}<.ing.»iri-tog consivderatic-.itl't*yi'enty
years as qualifying service but him
in U.P.State Observatoi*y,_._"'i\ia_ii.ttta§l,A ignored. He
had made severalArepresentationslto claiming
grant of weightagleljgoifg of the Central

Civil Services (hereinafter, referred to as the

'Pension A'R_1,iles')' negatived. Under the

circumstances, he'challenged Annexure 'A–12' being a letter

' l.°date'd 12,[g2008l"isstied by the petitioner herein and

soltighta:"direc'i:ion. to give five years service Weightage while

re–ca41cu1a.tin"g–_. his retiral benefits and to fix his pension as

. 'per Ru1e_3O of the Pension Rules.

Though uinpteen number of opportunities were

git-gen by the Tribunal to the petitioner herein to file reply

from 23/7/2009 to 4/3/2010, the petitioner herein did not

file its reply. Ultimately, on hearing the respondent, the
matter was disposed of on merits. Thereafter,

M.A,No.l34~/2010 was filed by the petitioner, the said

,»-°’?.=a-

_,;l_

application was allowed and reply of the petitioner herein

was taken on record and the matter was re~heai’d

application of the respondent was allowed. Being _

by the said order. this writ petition hasmbeen £il–ed*_» ..’:~.. b V.

4. We have heard the learned».eotirise.l”‘-folrVftheyyl

petitioner.

5. It is subrnittedy.that:the.V is not
entitled to Rule 30 of the
Pension proviso to the said
Rule the Rule cannot be
extendedvvlltoihini.’ ..V’_ll’ii.-ljzyitigfl1:;trie””respondent does not satisfy

the conditions’ l_aidi..dovvn Rule 30, the Tribunal while

3 V’ inisconstiiuingy the sai’d'”P{ule granted the benefit of five years

services which the respondent is not entitled

to. Ti’ibtii_:al could not have directed that the services

“a,,,..~.l’1’enderedVu’E;~y the respondent in U.P.Sta§e m/Ofllbservatory,

should be taken into consideration While giving

___””weight’.age of five years as the same would be contrary to the

u”,Rttle and therefore. he submitted that the order passed by

the Tribunal may be set aside and the application of the

respondent. may be dismissed. /'”

A ..:i’t.{a}ljf()r which postgraduate research, or specialist

_5_n.

6. Having, heard the counsel for the petitioner and on
perusal of the inaierial on record, the question
for our consideration is as to whether the
entitled to the benefit of weightage OfySAt?I’ViC€S_-ti1’11il.§l’., it
of the Pension Rules on the p1’en1is:-ev .l

conditions mentioned therein. the outset, iiiVi’sl”necessi1ryl

to extract the said Rule?

“SO. ,_Addiii0n–v:._to. q.iicilifi}’ingl”iservice in
special circilrnstances ii .

{1} [A Governrreritv”jrom a service
or 1960], shall be
elf{giblel_’lA service qualifying for
siiperannuaiionf,–~{biit’ not for any other
classlll’Q.f::_c;ctual period not exceeding

‘4;one;foiirth”of_Vthe length of his service or the actual

& ‘- ijeriod”by whicvhmhis age at the time of recruitment

V ‘Vexceededtweniygfive years or a period. of five
2 is less, if the service or post to
Government servant is appointed is

one¥

“qualification or experience in scientific,
technological or professional fields, is essential;
and

{b} to which candidates of more than twenty-five

years of age are normally recruited:

“fr

‘”‘–__V1:’1’aye the vreiquisite eligibiiity for the said benefit, which are as

7. On a perusal of the said rule, it is seenyV_Vt.h:at
weightage 01′ services can be extended to a _
superannuation to an extent of actuaimper’i0d–‘U17-Aseryice r1_0t ‘
exceeding 1/4″‘ of the ierlgth of his .«
by which his age at the tirne,ef_recrtiitiiinent
years or a period of 5 years. less. j’in’ere:’:are two
further conditions which beibireuthe said
benefit can be extended :1 I V

a) servant is

gfaduate research
experience in scientific
;prbies’siona1 fieids is essenttiai;
Is}, oiismore than 25 years of age are
‘ r’eCr’Uited inthiedsaid post.

8] vv..4:iicwevfei”, there are three other riders which a

G0veitnmevn’t..s.eiyant would have to tide ever even in order to

1} That the Government” servant must have a
qualifying service of not less than £0 years at the
time he quits the sewices:

2] T hat the aforesaid concession is admissible only if
the rccruit.n1ent rules in respect of the services of

a,

“2

the post contain a specific provision that t1i_.e~.sa«rn’e.V

would carry t.he benefit of the ruie; and

3) The Government servant niusth opt belore

of his retirement for the’».:we_ig;ht’,age. of”‘se’r<.fiei_es::;_t

under the rules whieii..__ option once n.e'xei'C.i,sVed_.§ is

final.

9. In the instant it on 13 / 2 / 1978 as

per Annexure the position of
Research the respondent. Prior
to his retii’eii1.etn’trort’::28./ respondent represented
for grar1t’:of as per the prevailing rules

including Rule 30 the._Per:i.sion Rules. He thereafter, made

.. _ several:representations on attaining superannuation also. In

‘r_res’p’onse_ to –the. said representations Annexure A~5 was

‘A-5’ is a letter dated 30/9/2004. The

_ said 1e’tte1″—-V:is ‘c:>”iti”aeted as fo11ows:~

VV1’1..VDIAN INSTITUTE OF ASTROPHYSICS

KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE~56O 034

HA / AS / 3 I 06 / Pension / 2004-05
September 30. 2004

RPAD

Dr G.S.D.Babu xi

,2:

Fiat” it 01 1, Ganga Btocic ”

National Games Village

A 11

request for counting of your past service in UPSO, (presently
ARIES.) Nainitai, provided ARIES transfers to HA the senaiice

benefits. You might. therefore, consider initiofing sfep”s._’_tov
transfer your past service along with proportionate.pertsion’ V.
liability from ARIES to HA. Once this is done, y_or___tr ‘ _

can be taken up for consideration.

Thanking you,

ully it

L» b it
. _ Admfnis trdtive Qflicer

A perusal of the le’-}_te1jV– .”make it apparent
that one of the diAsqualifieat:ions’lvrnentlioned earlier letter

dated 30/9/ ‘d-i-dj not have a Ph.D

Degree when Ahe_–v_ioineci–.’the__ services of the Institute was
deleted. _eondiL~tor.1″fo_r”‘t’ransfer of past services was

however. insisted ‘ubon’- in letter dated 15/7/2008

. .l{z’%.nIie>{:t1re’A’A1 12′), wlhlerein, it was stated that the request for

ll’c_ot1.ntii1g:”eflpastservices rendered in AIRES had not been

1z1v.,__ t’EVe1’1 in the statement of objections filed by the

S Tl.lp.e’Lvitioi51er herein before the Tribunal, it has been contended

the respondent joined the petitioner ~ Organisation as a

:.”VPost Graduate holding a Masters Degree in Astronomy and

he did not possess his Doctorate Degree and had received
Ph.D Deg1*ee in 1987 during his services at the respondent.

lnstittite and that the benefit under Rule 30 is not available.

“/ ‘$1!/.:«

13~

Pension Rules states that the Government servant. has to be

appointed to a post. for which post–graduate researc:1:’1’«._y»_orv

specialist quaiification or experience in _.–§__scieritifiC§”.._._”.

technologicai or professional fields, isessential”andj’_to’Vvrhichit

candidates of more than tWenty–{ive;’-yearsea,.of “‘ag’eV:”-sare:g

nomiaily recruited. in the instant case,A._the respondevnt hgiadd

experience in scientific field _Vhad”‘w_or£{edVVgin the
U.P.State Observatory t1<.I_ere.fore,_v.yyas entitled to be
appointed as a Research__Avss.oei'ateV a~'g\'/,tiiet_'ivlnstitute in the

year 1978. Su2_bs'efg§-}ent1y, he";obtai.ned.,a_fiDoctorate Degree

while workingiiifthevZinstitute. Therefore, on that score, the
petitioners the benefit of Rule 30 to

the respvonderit.v., 'T'r1e'Tri'bu.na} has considered these aspects

handheld iiii the requirements insisted by the

to extend the benefit of Rule 30 to the

respondent ddtdiinot come within the scope of the said rule

that.Vthei*e is no other reason to deny the benefit of Rule

"{§Oxtbo."the respondent. Under the circumstances, a direction

x was issued to recaiculate the pensionaiy benefits by granting

five more years of weightage and to pay the consequentiai

benefits in terms of Rule 30 of the Pension Ruies. The said
di1"ecti0n is justified in View of the fact. that the respondents
case cleariy falls within the scope of Rule 30. He is not

/.

2 />

disqualified on account of any of the provisos of ihe saidijule

and the riders put: by the petitioners herein are outsiéie:’:ih’e

scope of the said rule or dehors the said rule and :*theifefé5’re,i’.”*’ ‘

Could not have been insisted upon bgwihe pe{itiOfi’e.if~herein.

The order of the tribunal does not ea1:i’:.fo1′;’_é3;n§r TC

14. In the 1’€SL11T., i10A”‘m_esiiV

petition, the same fails and isiaeicvofdingjiy; .Afjeje’e_ied.

e n; i » 4 i i sax:

JUDGE

Sd/’3
FUDGE

W *n1iJ.s= .,