ups_01245 — Applicant herein, joined as Programme Assistant / Junior Programmer in the computer division of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology (R-1), Thiruvananthapuram and moved over as Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda on 15-6-2008. While moving out of the Institution (R-1), it was a 'technical resignation' with the permission of the appropriate authority who passed the pension order to the Applicant. Respondent No. 1, because of the above movement of the Applicant developed a f

Applicant herein, joined as Programme Assistant / Junior Programmer in the computer division of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology (R-1), Thiruvananthapuram and moved over as Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda on 15-6-2008. While moving out of the Institution (R-1), it was a 'technical resignation' with the permission of the appropriate authority who passed the pension order to the Applicant. Respondent No. 1, because of the above movement of the Applicant developed a feeling that it had committed a mistake in the grant of pension to him. Tribunal in view of Annexure R-1

(a) that Rules of Government are not strictly applicable to the employees of Respondent (R-1), Institute is directed to pass appropriate orders regarding the continuance of the pro rata pension already granted to the Applicant herein by the appropriate authority — This chunk is from an order issued in a case where the applicant, who previously worked at Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, was seeking to continue receiving his pens... — Facts: This is a transferred application transferred from High Court to the Tribunal and this TA is numbered as TA 180/10/2015. In this TA, the prayer is to release the monthly pension granted to the Applicant when he left his job as a Programme Assistant / Junior Programmer in the Computer Division of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram (R-1 herein). After leaving R-1, he worked in other Institutions and finally as a Senior Manager in Bank of Baroda on 15-6-2008. Respondent No. 1 granted him monthly pension which R-1 discontinued from May 2011 as R-1 had hesitation in granting the pension. This OA is filed against R-1 in discontinuing the payment of monthly pension to the Applicant from May 2011 onwards and commanding 1st Respondents to resume disbursement of monthly pension to the petitioner from May 2011 and an order commanding Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 namely, Secretary, Personnel and Training (R-2), Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare (R-3) and Principal Accountant General (R-4) to clarify to Respondent No. 1 that the petitioner is entitled to continue payment of pension from May 2011 onwards within a time limit and another reliefs, if any. As seen from the development of the judgment, no final order is given either way except directing the authorities to pass appropriate orders regarding the continuance of the pro rata pension already granted vide Exhibit P 1 Pension Payment Order and discontinued subsequently. Para. 20 explains the reasoning of passing the above order. It reads: "The pleadings and record indicate that there was in fact a technical resignation in the case of the Applicant (from R-1 Institution). But it seems that Respondent Nos. R-1 and R-3 (Secretary, Pensioners' Welfare) as indicated in Annexure R-1

(a) were more concerned and sceptical about the further migrants of the Applicant from RCC to other Commercial Nationalized Banks to demand pension. Admittedly, the Respondent Institute had adopted the pension rules applicable to the Government of India Employees. The pleading further show that it was on account of Annexure R-1

(a) Letter, the 1st Respondent Institute developed the feeling that it had committed a mistake. However, in Annexure MA-1 order, this Tribunal had clearly disapproved the observations and opinion in Annexure R-1

(a) communication issued by the Under Secretary of Respondent No. 3".