Ramakrushna Sasmal v. Union of India & Ors.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction to the respondents to grant him pro-rata pension from the date of his discharge from the Indian Air Force.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was enrolled as an Airman in the Indian Air Force on 16.03.1992. He served there for 12 years, 10 months and 18 days, and was kept in the reserve liability list for the period of two years, before his final discharge from service on 03.02.2005. The petitioner claims that subsequent to his discharge, he joined as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) on 16.05.2005. The petitioner claims that in terms of the Policy Letter bearing No. 8(3)/86/A/D(Pension/Services) dated 19.02.1987 issued by the Ministry of Defence/Raksha Mantralaya, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, the petitioner, was entitled to pro-rata pension for the period of his services. The petitioner, in support of his claim, places reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Govind Kumar Srivastava vs Union of India & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6425, and in Brijlal Kumar & Ors vs Union Of India, 2020:DHC:3331-DB.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the Order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the respondents, rejecting his prayer for grant of pro-rata pension.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground for rejecting the grant of pro rata pension to the petitioner is that the No Objection Certificate (NOC), that was earlier issued to the petitioner, was for joining the Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), while the petitioner later went ahead and joined the BSNL. He submits that this cannot be a ground for rejecting the grant of pro-rata pension to the petitioner in terms of the Policy Letter dated 19.02.1987 and the Judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that though it is a fact that by a Letter dated 02.03.2001, a NOC was granted to the petitioner for applying for the post of Probationary Engineer in the BEL, however, the petitioner was not successful in the said selection process and continued to remain in service with the Indian Air Force. It was only by a Letter dated October, 2004 that the petitioner sought discharge stating therein that he needed to acquire a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering from Delhi College of Engineering and on compassionate grounds. The said request of the petitioner was accepted and he was finally discharged on 03.02.2005. The order of discharge records the same as under:- “Reason for discharge xxxx (3) Other reason “AT HIS OWN REQUEST BEFORE FULFILLING CONDITION OF ENROLLMENT”

6. He submits that, therefore, the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions as prescribed in the Letter dated 19.02.1987 inasmuch as he did not file an application for employment with BSNL through proper channels nor sought discharge from service from the Indian Air Force on the ground that he had to join another Central Public Enterprise.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The Policy Letter dated 19.02.1987 states that for grant of pro-rata pension, the employee is to be appointed in a Central Public Enterprises on the basis of an application sent through proper channel and should be permitted to retire pre-maturely from service in defence services for purposes of taking up appointment in the Enterprises. We quote from the policy as under:-

are permitted to retire prematurely from service in the Defence Services for the purpose of taking up the appointment in the Enterprises.”

9. In the present case, the petitioner applied for discharge from the Indian Air Force, not to join any Central Public Enterprise, that is, BEL or BSNL, but to acquire a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering from Delhi College of Engineering. It was this request that was finally accepted by the respondents vide the Letter dated 03.02.2005, and he was allowed to be discharged from service at his own request before fulfilling the condition of enrolment. The petitioner is not even claiming that he applied to BSNL through the proper channel or after taking the NOC from the respondents.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner failed to fulfil the conditions of Policy Letter dated 19.02.1987 and is not entitled to seek benefit thereunder. The judgments of this Court in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and in Brijlal Kumar (supra) also, therefore, not applicable in the facts of the present case.