Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the denial of pension to the appellant, who retired after 23 years of service as Chief of Police in Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The appellant was not granted pension on the basis that he had never been confirmed in a substantive post during his service. He challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled against him, stating he was not entitled to pension under Rule 13 of the Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as he had retired without holding a lien on any substantive post. The Tribunal's decision was made ex-parte, and his request for restoration was also rejected. The respondents contended that the appellant's confirmation was not recommended due to two departmental enquiries that resulted in a deduction from his gratuity. The Supreme Court found that the findings from these enquiries were not communicated to the appellant during his service and were only provided post-retirement. The Court noted that the appellant's confirmation was due in 1967, and the Departmental Promotion Committee should have assessed his record from that time, which showed no adverse remarks. The Court ruled that the appellant was entitled to confirmation as a Chief of Police when the post became permanent in 1967, and it was arbitrary to defer his confirmation based on the absence of Recruitment Rules. The Court directed the respondents to treat the appellant as a confirmed employee, fix his pension, and pay all arrears with interest. The appeals were allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Pension Entitlement - Confirmation of Service - Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 13 - Appellant denied pension on grounds of not being confirmed in any post despite 23 years of service. Court held that the denial was arbitrary as the appellant was entitled to confirmation based on his service record at the time the post became permanent. Respondents directed to treat the appellant as a confirmed employee and fix his pension accordingly (Paras 63D-G).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to pension despite not being confirmed in a substantive post during his service.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing the respondents to treat the appellant as a confirmed employee, fix his pension, and pay all arrears with 12% interest within specified timelines.
Law Points
- Pension entitlement
- confirmation of service
- arbitrary denial of benefits
- procedural fairness
