ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent was appointment as Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the Accountant General in the State of Madhya Pradesh on 21-11-1955. The said appointment was on a temporary basis and the respondent was declared permanent with effect from 1 -3-1960. He was subsequently appointed as S.S. Accountant with effect from 4-7-1961. While thus employed, he applied for the post of Accounts Executive in the Bokaro Steel Plant. The said application was forwarded through proper channel with the condition that in case he was selected he would have to resign finally within a period of two years beyond which his lien would not be retained in the parent office. On selection for the said post of Accounts Executive the respondent was relieved on 19-10-1967 and he tendered his resignation with effect from the date he was relieved from duty and the resignation was accepted with effect from 20-10-1967. He made a claim for pro rata retirement benefits for the period of service rendered by him in the Office of the Accountant General from 21-11-1955 to 19-10-1967. The said claim of the respondent was not accepted. He, therefore, filed an application (OA No. 2414 of 1992) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) which application has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 7-6-1994. The Tribunal has held that the respondent was entitled to payment of pro rata pension, gratuity, etc. admissible to him in respect of his service in the Office of the Accountant General. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal the appellants have filed this appeal.
4. Payment of pension to a government servant on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body is governed by Rule 37 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which provides as under:
37. Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body. – A government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government shall, if such absorption is declared by the Government to be in the public interest, be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits which he may have elected or deemed to have elected, and from such date as may be determined, in accordance with the orders of the Government applicable to him:
5. A perusal of the said provision would show that a government servant absorbed in a service or post in or under a corporation or a company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government shall be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits which he may have elected or deemed to have elected provided the following two conditions are satisfied:
(i) he has been permitted to be so absorbed, and
(ii) such absorption is declared by the Government to be in the public interest.
6. In the present case, neither of these two conditions is satisfied. There is no declaration by the Government that the absorption of the respondent in the service in Bokaro Steel Plant is in public interest. In fact, the appointment of the respondent in Bokaro Steel Plant cannot be regarded as absorption as contemplated in Rule 37 because the said appointment was not after obtaining the necessary permission from the Government. The respondent took the said appointment after resigning from the post which he was holding in the Office of the Accountant General.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that permission had been granted for his appointment in Bokaro Steel Plant since while forwarding the application a condition was imposed that the respondent would have to resign from government service. In our opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. Merely because at the time of forwarding the application of the respondent the authorities imposed the condition that on selection he would have to resign does not mean that the necessary permission had been granted for the absorption of the respondent on the post of Accounts Executive in the Bokaro Steel Plant. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in proceeding on the basis that the provisions of Rule 37 were applicable in the present case and the respondent was entitled to payment of pro rata retiral benefits by virtue of the said provision.
8. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in T.S. Thiruvengadam v. Secy. to Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure . The said decision has, however, no application in the facts of the present case. In that case this Court has expressly pointed out: SCC p. 178, para 12
12. …It is not disputed that the appellant was permitted to be absorbed in the Central Government public undertaking in public interest. The appellant, as such, shall be deemed to have retired from government service from the date of his absorption and is eligible to receive the retirement benefits.
9. As indicated earlier, this is not so in the present case.
10. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and OA No. 2414 of 1994 filed by the respondent is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
