Case Note & Summary
The Union of India, through the Department of Posts, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.605 of 2021. The original application before the Tribunal had been filed by R. Kaliaperumal, an employee who had rendered 9 years and 4 months of qualifying service in Group D category. He challenged a departmental order dated 25.11.2020 rejecting his claim for pension on the ground that he did not meet the minimum qualifying service of 10 years prescribed under the CCS Pension Rules. The rejection was based on the Supreme Court's order dated 08.11.2019, which required the concerned Ministry to consider whether the minimum qualifying service rule could be relaxed under Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules. The Department examined the case and concluded that relaxation need not be granted. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the employee's original application, effectively directing grant of pension. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed the present writ petition, contending that the Tribunal misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera (2021) 14 SCC 786 and that the shortfall of eight months could not be rounded off to make the employee eligible for pension. The High Court considered whether the Tribunal erred in extending the benefit of pension despite the shortfall exceeding the permissible limit. The High Court noted that CCS Pension Rules prescribe 10 years of qualifying service for pension. A shortfall of up to three months may be rounded off to one year, but beyond that, the power of relaxation vests solely with the Government. The High Court held that in exercise of judicial review under Article 226, it cannot relax service rules for an individual, as doing so would unsettle the pension scheme and open a Pandora's box. General powers of relaxation under statutes and rules are to be exercised sparingly and discretely, only upon proof of gross injustice or miscarriage of justice. The Court observed that the employee had completed only 9 years and 4 months, leaving a shortfall of eight months; if courts were to relax such shortfalls, it would have larger repercussions and cause huge financial burden to the Union of India, as similarly placed employees across departments would seek similar relaxations. The High Court found that the Central Administrative Tribunal failed to appreciate the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera, which was decided on different facts and cannot be applied mechanically in every case of shortfall beyond the permissible limit. The Court also reiterated that though pension is a constitutional right, it still exists within the contours of the scheme framed by the Government under the relevant Rules. Consequently, the High Court held that the Tribunal's order could not be sustained. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 29.05.2023 in O.A.No.605/2021 was set aside, no costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Qualifying Service - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 88 - The employee had completed 9 years and 4 months qualifying service in Group D, leaving a shortfall of eight months against the required ten years under CCS Pension Rules. The Rules permit rounding off only for shortfalls up to three months; beyond that relaxation is exclusively within Government's power. Held that the Tribunal erred in granting pension as the shortfall exceeded the permissible limit (Paras 5-6). B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Power of Relaxation - Constitution of India, Article 226; Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 88 - The High Court in exercise of judicial review cannot relax service rules in favor of an individual, as it would unsettle the pension scheme and open a Pandora's box. General power of relaxation must be exercised sparingly and only on gross injustice; courts must exercise restraint. Held that the writ petition must be allowed to set aside the Tribunal's order (Para 5). C) Precedent - Distinguishing Ratio - Applicability of Gandiba Behera - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera (2021) 14 SCC 786 was based on different facts and cannot be applied to every case of shortfall beyond permissible limit. Held that the Tribunal misapplied the ratio of that decision (Para 7). D) Service Law - Pension - Nature of Constitutional Right - Constitution of India; Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Pension is a right under the Constitution but exists within the contours of the scheme framed by the Government under the relevant rules. Held that the employee's claim could not be sustained merely on the ground of constitutional right when statutory conditions were not met (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing relaxation of the minimum qualifying service of 10 years under CCS Pension Rules for an employee who had rendered only 9 years and 4 months qualifying service, and whether the High Court in judicial review could exercise the power of relaxation vested in the Government.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.05.2023 in O.A.No.605/2021 set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- CCS Pension Rules prescribe 10 years qualifying service for pension
- shortfall of three months may be rounded off to one year
- beyond permissible limit
- power of relaxation vests with Government
- High Court cannot relax service rules in judicial review
- general power of relaxation to be exercised sparingly and discretely on gross injustice
- courts expected to exercise restraint
- pension is right under Constitution but within contours of scheme framed by Government under relevant Rules
