Narayan Singh Solanki Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 11730 of 1996
Petitioner: Narayan Singh Solanki
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 11730 of 1996
Judges: V.N. KHARE & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 25, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Pension
Employee resigning in 1963 – Option for Provident Fund – Amount paid – In 1991 employee asking for change over to Pension Scheme. Held that change after 28 years was not entertainable. Appeal dismissed.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The Appellant herein was appointed as a Clerk in the erst-while Jodhpur State Railways on 11.4.1950. On the re-organisation of Railways in the year 1952 the Appellant was transferred to Office of Personnel Branch under the Divisional Superintendent, Jodhpur. On 31st July, 1963 the Appellant resigned from service opting to take Provident Fund under the State Railways Provident Fund. The amount of provident fund was offered to the Appellant which was accepted by him and also other benefits to which he was entitled were also given.
2. In the year 1991 the Appellant alleged to have made represen-tation to the Railways requesting to change his option for Provi-dent Fund to the Pension Scheme. Subsequently, the Petitioner, in the year 1992 filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying therein that the Appellant’s resignation in the year 1963 has to be treated as Voluntary Retirement and since he has put in more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme and, therefore, his option which exercised in the year 1963 be cancelled. The Tribunal was of the view that the Appellant having not put in 20 years of qualifying service was not entitled to change his option at that stage. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. It is against the said judgement the Appellant is in appeal before us.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant reiterated the argument urged before the Tribunal. His case is that the case of the Appellant is covered by Rule 102 of the Rules. We are not in-clined to go into the merits of the matter as we are of the view that the Appellant having resigned from the service and accepted his Provident Fund in the year 1963 and thereafter remained silent for nearly 28 years, and therefore, demand for change in option in the year 1992 did not deserve to have entertained. In fact the Appellant was guilty of latches and, therefore, not entitled to change his option for pension. On this short ques-tion we dismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The Appellant herein was appointed as a Clerk in the erst-while Jodhpur State Railways on 11.4.1950. On the re-organisation of Railways in the year 1952 the Appellant was transferred to Office of Personnel Branch under the Divisional Superintendent, Jodhpur. On 31st July, 1963 the Appellant resigned from service opting to take Provident Fund under the State Railways Provident Fund. The amount of provident fund was offered to the Appellant which was accepted by him and also other benefits to which he was entitled were also given.
2. In the year 1991 the Appellant alleged to have made represen-tation to the Railways requesting to change his option for Provi-dent Fund to the Pension Scheme. Subsequently, the Petitioner, in the year 1992 filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying therein that the Appellant’s resignation in the year 1963 has to be treated as Voluntary Retirement and since he has put in more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme and, therefore, his option which exercised in the year 1963 be cancelled. The Tribunal was of the view that the Appellant having not put in 20 years of qualifying service was not entitled to change his option at that stage. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. It is against the said judgement the Appellant is in appeal before us.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant reiterated the argument urged before the Tribunal. His case is that the case of the Appellant is covered by Rule 102 of the Rules. We are not in-clined to go into the merits of the matter as we are of the view that the Appellant having resigned from the service and accepted his Provident Fund in the year 1963 and thereafter remained silent for nearly 28 years, and therefore, demand for change in option in the year 1992 did not deserve to have entertained. In fact the Appellant was guilty of latches and, therefore, not entitled to change his option for pension. On this short ques-tion we dismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
