1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. The appellant addressed letter dated 10‑6‑1981 to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for pensionary claim. Whereas P. O. Fs. (respondent 3) took no action, the D.E.S.T.O. (respondent No. 2) advised the appellant to submit his pension papers for the period of his service in D.E.S.T.O. from 1‑1‑1966 to 9‑6‑1975.

4. DESTO, vide their letter dated 12‑7‑1981 gave reference to their earlier letter, dated 23‑6‑1980 according to which the appellant had been appointed in D.E.S.T.O. on 1‑1‑1966 arid compulsorily retired on 10‑6‑1975. And further that prior to joining DESTO the appellant bad been appointed orderly in P. O. Fs. with effect from 4‑10‑1951 and removed from service with effect from 23‑7‑1965 on account of immoral activities.

5. Not receiving any reply from the P. O. Fs., the appellant filed his present appeal before the Tribunal on 6‑8‑1981 on the following admitted grounds: (a) The appellant has served for two spells of 4‑10‑1951 to 23.7‑1965 in the P. O. Fs. and in DESTO from 1‑1‑1966 to 10‑6‑1975. This period of about 24 years hag a short break of five months which may be condoned. (b) The P. O. Fs.' letter, dated 29‑11‑1976 (enclosed with D.E.S.T.O. letter dated 12‑7‑1981) alleging appellant's removal on immoral grounds be set aside. (c) The arrears of pension be paid alongwith the current rate of interest.

6. The learned counsel for the State at the very outset raised the objection that the appeal was heavily barred by time. The learned counsel for the appellant repelled the objection by saying that he had come to the Tribunal seeking pensionary benefits only and as such he was in time especially when the P. O. Fs'. stand (which he had discovered from their letter, dated 29‑11‑1976) alleged appellant's removal on immoral ground whereas the correct position was that his services had been terminated at one month's notice without any stigma. We are also of the considered view that since the P. O. Fs. withheld the pension of the appellant on baseless grounds of removal there is no question of the pensionary claim being time‑barred. The fact of the matter is that the appellant was never removed by the P. O. Fs. for reasons of immorality. Apparently, it was due to this erroneous belief that the pensionary claim of the appellant was never attended to by the P. O. Fs. with the despatch that it deserved. The correct position which we have arrived at as a result of arguments before us and on the basis of the relevant record, is that the appellant's service was terminated on one month's notice on 23‑7‑1965. The appellant's pensionary claim against the P. O. Fs. for his service from 4‑10‑1951 to 23‑7‑1965 stood established beyond doubt to which we shall advert to again, hereafter. This was also admitted by the learned State Counsel.

7. As regards appellant's pensionary claim against D.E.S.T.O.,, it is from 1‑1‑1966 to 10‑6‑1975. This works out to 9 years, 5 months and 10 days. The appellant availed of 4 months and 24 days of extraordinary leave without pay thus leaving his total calculable service for gratuity to 9 years and 12 days. For this period, the appellant has already received an amount of Rs. 1,944 from D.E.S.T.O., His case with D.E.S.T.O., therefore, stands closed.

8. The learned State Counsel, too, conceded that the appellant did have a genuine pension claim against the P.O. Fs. which had not been dealt with as it should have been. He, however, referred to the relevant rules vide Ministry of Defence letter dated 22‑5‑1971 whereby service rendered as E.T.E. from 1‑10‑1957 shall qualify for pension in full whereas that rendered before the said date shall count in half. According to this formula the pensionable period of the appellant works out to 10 years, 9 months and 22 days said the learned State Counsel, advised by the departmental representative. We shall order the P. O. Fs. to finalise the pension claim of the appellant at the earliest in accordance with the relevant rules. The appellant shall have a right to agitate his claim afresh before us if he feels aggrieved as to the calculation of his pension.

9. As regards appellant's prayer for condoning the gap between his termination in the P. O. Fs. and fresh appointment in D.E.S.T.O. so as to treat the period from 4‑10‑1951 to 10‑6‑1975 as one whole, we do not consider this to be an appropriate claim for two reasons. First, the appointment in D.E.S.T.O. was a fresh one even though it was under the same Ministry and secondly this issue was not agitated before the depart?mental authorities at the relevant time.

10. Ordered accordingly with no costs.

11. Parties be informed. A. B.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.