UNION OF INDIAversusS. DHARMALINGAM

A                         UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
                                     v.
                             S. DHARMALINGAM

                                OCTOBER 28, 1993

B                 {KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.)

          Service Law :

          Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972:

C          Rules 3(q), 13, 26(2), 30(i}-Superannuation pension-Addition to
    'qualifying service' in special circumstances-Eligibility-Held, benefit avail-
    able to every Government servant appointed to a service of post refe"ed to in
    r.30( 1) i"espective of his already being in Government service be/ore such
    appointment.
D          The respondent was employed as Investigator in the National
    Sample Survey with effect from May 8, 1956. He continued on the said post
    till 16-5-1960 when he was appointed to the post of Labour Officer, by way
    Gf direct recruitment. The respondent retired from service in August 1985.
    Though the period of service rendered by the respondent from May 8, 1956
E   till May 16,1960 was included in his qualifying service, his claim to benefit
    of addition in qualifying service under Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services
    (Pension) Rules, 1972 was not accepted. He moved the Central Administra-
    tive Tribunal, which allowed the claim.

           In appeal before this Court, it was contended by the appellants that
F    Rule 30 was applicable only in cases where a person joined Government
     service on the service or post referred to in the said rule and did not apply
    .to a person who was already in Government service, and was appointed to
     the service or post referred to in the rule; and if the benefit of the Rule is
     extended to such a person he would avail double benefit in the matter of
G    computation of his qualifying service, which was not envisaged by Rule 30.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

           HELD : 1.1. Addition to qualifying service under sub-rule (1) of rule
    30 of the Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is available to every Govern-
H   ment servant who is appointed to a service or post referred to in sub-rule
                                        446
                U.0.1.v. DHARMALINGAM [AGRAWAL,J.]                        447

(1) of Rule 30 after 31st March, 1960, irrespective of the fact whether he       A
was already in government service or was joining Government service for
the first time, at the time of appointment to the service or post referred to
in Rule 30. [450-A-B]

        1.2. Rule 30(1) seeks to confer a benefit in the matter of addition to
~ualifying service on a Government servant who is appointed to a service         B
or post fulfilling the conditions laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of
sub-rule(l) of Rule 30 of the Rules after March 31, 1960. The benefit is,
however, limited to the actual period not exceeding one-fourth of the length
of his service or the service or post referred to in Rule 30 or the actual
period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years or a        C
period of five years whichever is less. This would show that the intention
underlying the said provision is to compensate the Government servant
for the time taken by him in securing the additional qualifications or
experience which are essential for appointment to the service or post.
There is no reason for subjecting a person who is already in Government
service at the time oC-4'.i:ii-appointment to a service or post referred to in   D
Rule 30 to a differential treatment and denying him the benefit available
to other persons not in Government service at the time of such appoint-
ment. The language .used in Rule 30 does not make such an invidious
distinction. (450-C, E-H, 451-B]
                                                                                 E
      1.3. The respondent would not be availing a double benefit on ac-
count of the period of his earlier service from May 8, 1956 to may 16, 1960
being counted as part of his 'qualifying service' as defined in rule 3(q) of
the Rules. (451-E]

      1.4. Keeping in view the provisions of Rules 3(q), 13, 26(2) and 30 of     F
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 the period of service
rendered by the respondent from May 8, 1956 to May 16, 1960 has to be
treated as part of his qualifying service and, in the ab~ence of any rule to
the contrary, it cannot be excluded from the qualifying service of the
respondent. [452-C-D]                                                            G

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 503 of
1993.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.88 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in 0.A. No. 182/87.                          H
    448                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A        V.C. Mahajan, Ms. Niranjan Singh, Anil Katiyar and C.V.S. Rao for·
    the Appellants.
                           '
          K.K. Venugopal and Pramod Dayal for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
        S.C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal, by special leave, raises the question
  whether the benefit of addition to his qualifying service under Rule 30 of
  the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
  'the Rules') can be availed by a person who was already employed as a
  Government servant when he was appointed to the service or post referred
C to in Rule 30.
        The respondent was employed as Investigator iii the National Sample
  Survey with effect from May 8, 1956. While thus employed he was selected
  for the post of Labour Officer, by way of direct recruitment through the
  Union Public Service Commission, and having been appointed on the post
D of Labour Officer; he joined the said post on M'ay 16, 1960. The respondent
  has retired from service in August, 1985. The period of service from May
  8, 1956 till May 16, 1960, when he was working as Investigator in the
  National Sample Survey was included in his .qualifying service. He, how-
  ever, claimed further benefit of addition in qualifying service under Rule
E 30 of the Rules which claim of the respondent was not accepted by the
  authorities and thereupon he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal
  (for short 'the Tribunal'). The said application of the respondent was
  allowed by the Tribunal by order dated July 12, 1988. The Tribunal has
  directed the appellants to give to the respondent the benefit of addition of
F computed number of years to his qualifying service as permissible under
  Rule 30(1) of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the
  Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

         Rule 30(1) of the Rules, as it stood at the relevant time, provided as
    under:
G
            "30 ADDITION TO QUALIFYING SERVICE IN SPECIAL
            CIRCUMSTANCES

            (1) A Government servant appointed to a service or post after the
            31st March, 1960, shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying
H           for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension)
              U.0.1. v. DHARMALINGAM (AGRAWAL,J.]                         449

        the actual period not exceeding one- fourth of the length of his A
        service or the actual period hy which his age at the time of
        recruitment exceeded twenty-five years or a period of five years,
        whichever is Jess, if the service or post to which the Government
        servant is appointed is one -

        (a) for which post-graduate research, or specialist qualification or      B
        experience in scientific, technological or professional fields, is
        essential; and

        (b) to which candidates of more than twenty-five years of age are
        normally recruited :                                                      c
           Provided that this concession shall not be admissihle to a
        Government servant unless his actual qualifying service at the time
        he quits Government service is not less then ten years :

             Provided further that this. concession shall be admissible ~;ily     D
        if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain
        a specific provision that the service or post is one which carries
        the benefit of this rule:"

      Shri V.C. Mahajan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, has urged that Rule 30 is applicable only in cases where a            E
Government servant joins Government service on the service or post
referred to in the said rule and it does not apply to a person who is already
in service and has been appointed to the service or post referred to in the
rule while employed as a Government servant. The submission of Shri
Mahajan is that if the benefit of Rule 30 is made available to a person who       F
prior to his appointment to a service or post referred to in rule 30 was
already employed with the Government h~ would avail double benefit in
the matter of computation of his qualifying service which is not envisaged
by Rule 30.

      Since the respondent has failed to appear in spite of service and the       G
question involving interpretation of Rule 30(1) of the Rules is likely to
affect a large number of persons, the Legal Aid Society of the Supreme
Court was requested to nominate a senior counsel to assist the court and
in pursuance of the said request, Shri K.K. Venugopal has appeared and
made his submissions.                                                             H
    450                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           Shri Venugopal has urged that the benefit of addition to qualifying
    service under Rule 30 of the Rules is available to every person who is
    appointed to a service or post after 31st March, 1960 if the conditions laid
    down in clauses (a) and (b) Rule 30(1) are fulfilled and the applicability
    of the said rule is not dependent on the employee being appointed for the
B   first time in Government service. Shri Venugopal has further urged that
    there is no question of a double benefit being availed by the person who
    is already employed as a Government servant and is appointed to a service
    or post referred to in Rule 30(1). He only avails the additional benefit given   ..
    to all government servants fulfilling the conditions prescribed in Rule 30(1).

C        From a perusal of rule 30( 1) it is evident that· it seeks to confer a
   benefit in the matter of addition to qualifying service on a Government
   servant who is appointed to a service or post fulfilling the conditions laid
   down in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 30 of the Rules after
                                                                                     -
   March 31, 1960. Clause {a) envisages that the service or post should be one. ·
D for which post-graduate research, or specialist qualification or experience
   in scientific, technological or professional fields, is essential. Clause (b)
   postulates that such service or post is one to which candidates of more than
   twenty-five years of age are normally recruited. The benefit in the matter
  of addition to qualifying service is, how~ver, limited to the actual period
  -not exceeding one-fourth of the length of his service or the service or post
E referred· to in Rule 30 or the actual period by which his age at the time of
   recruitment exceeded 25 years or a period of five years whichever is less.
  This would show that the intention underlying the said provision ~ to
  compensate the Government servant for the time taken by him in securing
  the additional qualifications or experience which are essential for appoint-
F ment to the service or post. This benefit is available to every Government
                                                                                     ...
  servant who fulfils the requirements of the rule and there is nothing in
  sub-rule(l) of rule 30 to exclude the applicability of the said provision to
  a person who is already in Government service at the time of his appoint-
  ment to a service or post referred to in Rule 30. To hold that the benefit
  under Rule 30 cannot be availed of by a person who is already in Govern-
G ment service at the time of his appointment to a service or post referred
   to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 would lead to anomalous conseQuenees. A
   person who after employment in Government service for one year is
   appointed to a service or post referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 30, would
   be entitled to addition of only one year to his qualifying servict; if. the
H benefit of Rule 30 is denied to him while a person who is not employed as
               U.O.l. v. DHARMALJNGAM [AGRAWAL,J.)                         451

  a Government servant at the time of his appointment to a service or post A
  referred to in Rule 30 would be entitled to addition to a period extending
  upto 5 years to his qualifying service. There appears to be no reason for
  subjecting a person who is already in Government service at the time of
· his appointment to a service or post referred to in Rule 30 to a differential
  treatment and denying him the benefit available to other persons who is B
  not in Government service at the time of such appointment. The language
  used in Rule 30 does not make such an invidious distinction. In our view,
  therefore, addition to qualifying service under sub-rule (1) of rule 30 is
  available to every Government servant who is appointed to a service or post
  referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 after 31st March, 1960, irrespective
  of the fact whether he was already in Government service o~ was joining C
  Government service for the first time, at the time of appointment to the
  service or post referred to in Rule 30.

       Shri Mahajan has next contended that even if the benefit of sub-rule
 (1) of rule 30 is extended to the respondent, the same should be confined
 to the period under sub-rule(l) of rule 30 an<l Lhe earlier period of his        D
 employment in Government service from May 8, 1956 to May 16, 1960
 should be excluded from the qualifying service or otherwise the respondent
 would be availing double benefit of addition to his qualifying service. We
 are unable to appreciate this contention. There is no question of the
 respondent availing a double benefit on account of the period of his earlier     E
 service from May, 8, 1956 to May 16, 1960 being counted as part of his
 qualifying service because during that period he was serving as an Inves-
 tigator in the National Sample Survey and no rule has been shown to us
 whereunder the said period cannot be counted as part of his. qualifying
 service. The expression 'qualifying service' has been defined in rule 3(q) of    F
 the Rules to mean "service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall
 be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible
 under these rules". Rule 13 which deals with commencement of qualifying
 service prescribes as under :

          "13. COMMENCEMENT OF QUALIFYING SERVICE                                 G

              Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a
          Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge
          of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in
          an officiating or temporary capacity :                                  H
    452                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A               Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed
             without interruption by substantive appointment in_ the same or
             another service or post: ..

         Reference, in this context, may also be made to sub-rule (2) of rule
    26 which reads as under :
B
            "A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if has been
            submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appoint-
            ment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government
            where service qualifies."

C          Keeping in view the provisions of the Rules referred to above the ·
    period of service from May 8, 1956 to May 16, 1960 when the respondent
    was working as Investigator in the National Sample Survey has to be treated
    as part of his qualifying service and it cannot be excluded from the
    qualifying service of the respondent on the ground that he would be
D                                                                     of
    availing the addition to his qualifying service under sub-rule (1) Rule 30.

          The Tribunal has rightly held that the respondent. is entitled to. avail
    the benefit of addition to his qualifying service under rule 30(1) of the
    Rules. The appeal, therefore, fails and is1accordingly dismissed but without
E   any order as to costs.                                                       ·

    R.P.                                                       Appeal dismissed.