ups_00076 — The request of the Applicant to combine his services in Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) , a Civil Government service, with the service in Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC), a Public Sector Company, for the purpose of Pensionary benefits is not permissible. His reliance on Circulars, dated 11-4-2001 and 27-1-2003 clarifying Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1972, are not correct as they apply where service rendered in Armed Forces is sought to be combined with Civil Se

UPS

The request of the Applicant to combine his services in Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) , a Civil Government service, with the service in Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC), a Public Sector Company, for the purpose of Pensionary benefits is not permissible. His reliance on Circulars, dated 11-4-2001 and 27-1-2003 clarifying Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1972, are not correct as they apply where service rendered in Armed Forces is sought to be combined with Civil Service — This chunk discusses a legal case (C.A. No. 3138 of 2008) regarding an applicant who served in the Indian Air Force, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), and Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC). The applic... — Facts : The Applicant who was Air Corporal in Indian Air Force, on his retirement received pension and joined as a Tradesman E under Narora Atomic Power Station (NAP), which was under the control of Department of Atomic Energy. Consolidated pension combining the pension from Air Force can be asked for on his retirement from NAP or claim the pension from Air Force separately. He opted to claim the pension from Air Force and did not opt for combined civil and military pension. When the Nuclear Power Corporation was formed on 3-9-1987, he was also transferred to Nuclear Power Board (NPB) along with other employees on deputation. NPB was a constituent of DAE, and was formed under the Notification, dated 4-9-1987. The condition of service was finalized by O.M., dated 26-5-1994 which was challenged in Central Administrative Tribunal. The Applicant having retired from Indian Air Force joined Narora Power Station (NAP) under DAE and went on deputation to NPB, a constituent of DAE, opted for combined pension (i.e., pro rata pension and family pension) from NAP and NPB, by his option, dated 13-2-1998. He resigned from the service of Government of India on 31-12-1997 and joined service of the Corporation on 1-1-1998. He requested for change of pro rata pension by his request, dated 14-1-1999. But that option was rejected by authorities. He was drawing independent military pension. Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was clarified on or about 11-4-2001 with retrospective effect to bring the Civil and Military re-employed pensioners under that rule and further clarified that combining of pensions will not be subject to any limitations as per the provisions of Rule 18 (3) of the Rules. The Applicant who was in the third spell of service was also informed that his request cannot be agreed to by the DAE. His further representation, dated 26-7-2004 was also rejected. Thus his request of allowing him to change the option of pro rata pension to combined service pension was disallowed. The Appellant retired from service on 31-1-2006 and filed a writ petition in the High Court of Mumbai claiming that his services under the Union of India and Military Service should be permitted to be combined for the purpose of pensionary benefits and option permitted to be reexercised by him. Due to delay and laches, the writ was dismissed by the Division Bench. It was also said that on merit also he has no case. The Applicant gave no reason for delay to challenge the rejection of the Respondents rejected in 1999 till 2007 when he filed the writ. Hence this SLP was filed in the Apex Court. The Applicant justified his stand for condoning delay as it was not caused by him and the High Court failed to appreciate the reason. The Respondent contended that the relief asked for from them is different from the relief prayed for in the High Court. Further, pro rata pension option given at a point of time cannot be changed. The Respondent placed a booklet issued by them from which it is evident that pro rata pension cannot be allowed to be commuted at any time. Changing his option now will prejudice the Corporation. If the request for change of option is now allowed for the Applicant, it opens the flood gate and others also will demand for similar re-option. Hence the relief asked for now by the Applicant cannot be granted. The Apex Court considered the views of both parties. The Appellant joined Air Force first, then DAE and now the Corporation. His request for combining pro rata pension was rejected on 18-2-1999 which was not challenged. The Circular, dated 11-4-2001 has no bearing to the Applicant who opted for separate military and civil pension. Rule 18 (3) provided that "a Government servant who opts for Clause
(a) of sub-rule (1), the pension or gratuity is admissible for his subsequent service is subject to the limitation, that service gratuity or the capital value of the pension and retirement gratuity if any, shall not be greater than the difference between the value of pension and retirement gratuity, if any, that would be admissible at the time of Government servant's final retirement if the two periods of service were combined and the value of retirement benefits already granted to him for the previous service". On 13-2-1998, even after retirement from DAE he opted to draw pro rata monthly pension and family pension benefits from the date of absorption. Even in the circular issued on 27-3-2003, it is clearly said that re-employment of military pensioner in civil service, the pensionary benefits from the second spell of service shall not be subject to any limitation as per provisons of Rule 18 (3) of the Rules i.e., it is not relatable to the service combined in DAE vis-a-vis combining the same with corporation service. Thus the relief asked for now is misconceived and cannot be granted. In that connection, it was held :

UPS

The request of the Applicant to combine his services in Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) , a Civil Government service, with the service in Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC), a Public Sector Company, for the purpose of Pensionary benefits is not permissible. His reliance on Circulars, dated 11-4-2001 and 27-1-2003 clarifying Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1972, are not correct as they apply where service rendered in Armed Forces is sought to be combined with Civil Service — This chunk discusses a legal case (C.A. No. 3138 of 2008) regarding an applicant who served in the Indian Air Force, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), and Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC). The applic... — Facts : The Applicant who was Air Corporal in Indian Air Force, on his retirement received pension and joined as a Tradesman E under Narora Atomic Power Station (NAP), which was under the control of Department of Atomic Energy. Consolidated pension combining the pension from Air Force can be asked for on his retirement from NAP or claim the pension from Air Force separately. He opted to claim the pension from Air Force and did not opt for combined civil and military pension. When the Nuclear Power Corporation was formed on 3-9-1987, he was also transferred to Nuclear Power Board (NPB) along with other employees on deputation. NPB was a constituent of DAE, and was formed under the Notification, dated 4-9-1987. The condition of service was finalized by O.M., dated 26-5-1994 which was challenged in Central Administrative Tribunal. The Applicant having retired from Indian Air Force joined Narora Power Station (NAP) under DAE and went on deputation to NPB, a constituent of DAE, opted for combined pension (i.e., pro rata pension and family pension) from NAP and NPB, by his option, dated 13-2-1998. He resigned from the service of Government of India on 31-12-1997 and joined service of the Corporation on 1-1-1998. He requested for change of pro rata pension by his request, dated 14-1-1999. But that option was rejected by authorities. He was drawing independent military pension. Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was clarified on or about 11-4-2001 with retrospective effect to bring the Civil and Military re-employed pensioners under that rule and further clarified that combining of pensions will not be subject to any limitations as per the provisions of Rule 18 (3) of the Rules. The Applicant who was in the third spell of service was also informed that his request cannot be agreed to by the DAE. His further representation, dated 26-7-2004 was also rejected. Thus his request of allowing him to change the option of pro rata pension to combined service pension was disallowed. The Appellant retired from service on 31-1-2006 and filed a writ petition in the High Court of Mumbai claiming that his services under the Union of India and Military Service should be permitted to be combined for the purpose of pensionary benefits and option permitted to be reexercised by him. Due to delay and laches, the writ was dismissed by the Division Bench. It was also said that on merit also he has no case. The Applicant gave no reason for delay to challenge the rejection of the Respondents rejected in 1999 till 2007 when he filed the writ. Hence this SLP was filed in the Apex Court. The Applicant justified his stand for condoning delay as it was not caused by him and the High Court failed to appreciate the reason. The Respondent contended that the relief asked for from them is different from the relief prayed for in the High Court. Further, pro rata pension option given at a point of time cannot be changed. The Respondent placed a booklet issued by them from which it is evident that pro rata pension cannot be allowed to be commuted at any time. Changing his option now will prejudice the Corporation. If the request for change of option is now allowed for the Applicant, it opens the flood gate and others also will demand for similar re-option. Hence the relief asked for now by the Applicant cannot be granted. The Apex Court considered the views of both parties. The Appellant joined Air Force first, then DAE and now the Corporation. His request for combining pro rata pension was rejected on 18-2-1999 which was not challenged. The Circular, dated 11-4-2001 has no bearing to the Applicant who opted for separate military and civil pension. Rule 18 (3) provided that "a Government servant who opts for Clause
(a) of sub-rule (1), the pension or gratuity is admissible for his subsequent service is subject to the limitation, that service gratuity or the capital value of the pension and retirement gratuity if any, shall not be greater than the difference between the value of pension and retirement gratuity, if any, that would be admissible at the time of Government servant's final retirement if the two periods of service were combined and the value of retirement benefits already granted to him for the previous service". On 13-2-1998, even after retirement from DAE he opted to draw pro rata monthly pension and family pension benefits from the date of absorption. Even in the circular issued on 27-3-2003, it is clearly said that re-employment of military pensioner in civil service, the pensionary benefits from the second spell of service shall not be subject to any limitation as per provisons of Rule 18 (3) of the Rules i.e., it is not relatable to the service combined in DAE vis-a-vis combining the same with corporation service. Thus the relief asked for now is misconceived and cannot be granted. In that connection, it was held :

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text