- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.29064 OF 2023 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. P K MOHAN LAL` S/O K K KORU AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.39/1, 3RD CROSS, HANUMANTHAPPA LAYOUT, SULTHANPALYA BENGALURU – 560 032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. THE DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 NO.8 INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SADHANA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2023 IN OA NO.170/00762/2017 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CAT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AS THE SAME IS ERRONEOUS AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 25.04.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby, the O.A. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The prayers in the O.A. were the following:- "(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order bearing No.13/SC/2015(3)878 dated 20.3.2017 produced at Annexure-20 as illegal and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 opposed to Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. b) (Deleted vide Order dated 16.01.2023 in MA No.34/2023) c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents No.2, 5 and 6 to pay the pro rata Pension and the Gratuity having regard to 10 years 11 months and 3 days service which the Applicant has put in with the Respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 and pay the arrears from the date on which the pension is due till today, with interest at the rate of 15% p.a, to meet the ends of justice. d) (Deleted vide Order dated 16.01.2023 in MA No.34/2023) e) (Deleted vide Order dated 16.01.2023 in MA No.34/2023) D (Deleted vide Order dated 16.01.2023 in MA No. 34/2023) g) Grant him the costs of this proceedings; and h) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and expedient to grant in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice." 2. The petitioner had joined the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter referred to as ‘SIB’, for short) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. On 26.02.1973, while working in SIB, he had applied/made an application for appointment in LRDE (DRDO), Indian Telephone - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 Industries (hereinafter referred to as ITI, for short), Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘ESIC’, for short) and Employee’s Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter referred to as ‘EPFO’, for short). The post of LRDE, ESIC and EPFO were pensionable service. The petitioner on his appointment in LRDE (DRDO) joined LRDE by retaining lien in the SIB. 3. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal in the year 2010 by filing O.A.No.288/2010 challenging the communication dated 03.05.2010 issued by the SIB and communication dated 19.06.2012 issued by the ESIC, seeking a direction to the respondents to pay arrears of pension due from the respective departments. The said O.A. was disposed of by Tribunal on 23.11.2016 directing the SIB to process the papers of the petitioner and forward them to ITI, who in-turn will forward the same to ESI Corporation. The ESI Corporation was to proceed and accept the payment from the petitioner on pro-rata basis towards contribution for the period with ITI. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 4. Be that as it may, the SIB had finally passed an order dated 20.03.2017 wherein, the SIB has stated as under:- “Please refer to Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore order dated 23.11.2016 allowing you to submit a comprehensive representation requesting pensionary benefits for the consideration of this department and your representation dated 23.12.2016 stating that your service in the Intelligence Bureau and Employees State Insurance Corporation w.e.f 26.2.1973 to 18.10.1990 is required to be counted for pension and gratuity and requesting to forward pro-rata pension and gratuity contribution as a lump sum payment to the Regional Director, ESIC for the period of service rendered in IB from 26.2.1973 to 30.1.1984 to grant pension and gratuity for the combined service in IB and ESIC. 2. The issue has been once again considered in the light of your representation dated 23.12.2016 and in pursuance of order of CAT, Bangalore dated 23.11.2016. It is hereby conveyed that as per Government of India's Decision (1) under Rule 37 of CCS (Pension) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 Rules, 1972, the benefits in terms of provisions of Rule 37 of CCS (Pension) Rules are available to Central Government employees absorbed by ESIC. Orders of permanent absorption have to be issued by the autonomous body/undertaking in consultation with the parent employer. Records clearly indicate that Shri P. K. Mohanlal was not absorbed in ESIC and proceeded to join EPFO after tendering technical resignation and not absorbed in EPFO as well. Further, Shri Mohanlal had resigned from the services of EPFO on personal grounds w.e.f 20.10.1992 entailing forfeiture of earlier service under Government and loss of the pensionary benefits as per Department of Expenditure, Government of India O.M No.26(18)/EV(B)/75 dated 8.4.1976. The OM dated 8.4.1976 stipulates that a permanent Government Servant on absorption in a PSU is eligible for pro-rata pension and DCRG based on the length of his qualifying service under Government till the date of absorption. There is no record to show that the Petitioner was absorbed in any Autonomous Body. There is no record to show that he had applied for counting of past service in each and every department he had served. The OM further states that cases of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 resignation from a Public Sector Undertaking/ Autonomous Body will, for the purpose of these orders, are treated as resignation from Government service, entailing forfeiture of earlier service under Government and loss of the pensionary benefits under these orders. 3. It is also stated that the initial decision of SIB, Bangalore and PAO, IB to grant Prorata pension and gratuity as claimed in the representation was based on the misinterpretation that he was eligible for the pensionary benefit as he was allowed technical resignation to take up employment with the ITI. However the stand was later revised as Shri PK Mohanlal is not eligible to draw pensionary benefits as per Department of Expenditure, Government of India O.M.No.26(18)/EV(B)/75 dated 8.4.1976. 4. Now, Shri Mohanlal has submitted this representation to count the service he had put in the SIB, Bangalore to ESIC to the extent of 17 years and 7 months and 23 days (26.2.1973 to 18.10.1990). It may be recalled that Shri PK Mohanlal had requested CAT, Bangalore to exclude the service he had put in EPFO as he had - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 resigned from EPFO and grant him pensionary benefits. The prayer of the Petitioner to count the service he had put in under SIB, Bangalore to ESIC and exclude the service he had put in the Office of EPFO is untenable as there is no provision under relevant rules to do so and as his having joined EPFO and resigning from the service of EPFO on personal grounds is an irreversible fact. Leaving out fact which is not suitable to his request is a travesty on the established rules and procedures. 5. In view of above and as per Department of Expenditure, Government of India O.M.No.26(18)/EV(B)/75 dated 8.4.1976, this office has not found any merit in the representation submitted by Shri PK Mohanlal and concludes that Shri PK Mohanlal is not eligible to draw pensionary benefits.” 5. It is the above order which was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rejected the O.A. filed by the petitioner. 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties on different dates. The submission of learned counsel for the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 petitioner is that he shall confine his prayer to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to pro-rata pensionary benefits for the period of service put in by him in SIB and LRDE (DRDO) which according to him is more than 10 years. 7. In support of his submission, he would contend that when he applied for the post in LRDE (DRDO) he had applied through proper channel. When the petitioner got appointment in LRDE (DRDO), he joined the LRDE by retaining the lien in SIB. His submission is also that before he could complete two years, he had come back to the SIB and tendered the technical resignation on 31.01.1984 which was accepted by the SIB. Pursuant thereto, he has joined the ITI. He also clarifies that ITI is not a pensionable service and he cannot claim any benefits from the ITI. He has also drawn our attention to the reply filed by the respondents at page No.92 of the paper book wherein, the following has been stated:- - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 “BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE Shri P.K. Mohanalal was initially appointed as LDC in the Intelligence Bureau 26.2.79, subsequently, he was appointed as ACIO-II/WT on 3.7.73 on his selection as civil assistant security officer in the LRDE (DRDO ministry of defense, he was relieved from IB on 13:1982 with permission to hold a lien of two years with the IB as he was holding quasi permanent status in IB. While working in the DRDO, he was selected as deputy vigilance officer, grade II in the ITI LTD., Bangalore (a Govt of India undertaking). Later he joined ESI corporation Bangalore on 6.6.1984 and then EPF organization on 19.10.1990. On his selection in the ITI LTD., Bangalore, Shri Mohanlal submitted his resignation and was relieved from the DRDO on 30.1.1984. on the basis of his resignation letter dated 31.12.1983, his lien with the IB was terminated w.e.f. 30.1.1984. the LRDE (DRDO) was requested by us to remit his leave salary and pension contribution for the period from 1.3.1982 to 30.1.1984. however the LRDE authorities vide their letter dated 27.1.09, replied that as Shri Mohanlal was retaining lien with IB there is no provision to remit the leave salary and prorata pension contributing as per rules. Accordingly the pension contribution for the period of his service in IB from 26.2.73. to 30.1.84. amounting to Rs.9041/- was sent to the ESI corporation by us through a bank draft. However the ESI corporation, Bangalore vide letter dated 9.10.09 has requested us to send the lump sum prorata pension and DCRG/terminal gratuity to them counting his last service. The matter was referred to Intelligence Bureau Hqrs at new Delhi for further course of action and has intimated by IB Hqrs., the ESI corporation was - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 informed that under rule 37(3) of CCS (pension) rules prescribes provision of grant of prorate pensionary benefits to central Govt. employees who are absorbed in ESIC. They are also eligible for retirement benefits as admissible under the orders issued from time to time according to their date of permanent absorption. Shri Mohanlal left LRDE for joining ITI LTD and not ESIC. Therefore, no pension contribution can be drawn on the basis of this rule and deposit with the ESIC. As ITI LTD is an autonomous organization under the GOI, Shri Mohanlal can be given prorata pension benefits on the basis service rendered in IB together with LRDE (mod) and this amount can be granted to him only on the basis the option exercised by him as per provision of relevant rules. The ESIC has there fore, requested to send back to us the amount of Rs.9041/- to consider the case of Shri Mohanlal for sanction of prorata pension benefits to him on the basis of option exercised by him according to provisions of relevant rules.” 8. According to the counsel from the aforesaid stand of the respondents, it is clear that it is the case of SIB that the pension contribution for the period of service put in by the petitioner in SIB from 26.02.1973 to 13.01.1994 amounting to Rs.9041/- was sent to the ESI Corporation by the SIB. However, the ESI Corporation, Bengaluru had requested them to send the lumpsum pro-rata pension and DCRG/terminal gratuity for counting his last service. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 9. We note the stand of the SIB in the reply that the petitioner can be given pro-rata pension benefits for the service rendered in SIB together with the LRDE and the said amount can be granted to him only on the basis of the option exercised by him as per the provisions of the relevant Rules. 10. Today, learned counsel for the respondents states as per her instructions, the ESIC has refunded the said amount to SIB which in turn deposited the amount with the Payment and Accounts office which ultimately deposited the money in the Consolidated Fund. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrates that the petitioner shall be entitled to the pro-rata pension having put in more than 10 years of service in SIB and LRDE (DRDO), under the Central Government from where he has returned back to SIB before going to ITI. From the above, it is also noted that the petitioner had filed the writ petition in the year 2010 having made a representation for the first time in the year 2008. In that sense, effective - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 from 2008, he has pursuing the issue of grant of the benefits in his favour. 11. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall confine his prayer for pro-rata pension having put in more than 10 years of service both in SIB/ LRDE (DRDO), he is entitled to the same. 12. We find that the Tribunal has rejected the O.A. by referring to Rule 26 of the Pension Rules which stipulates forfeiture of service on resignation and also Rule 37 of the Pension Rules which stipulate payment of pension on absorption in or under a Corporation or a Company or a Body Corporate. Since the petitioner is only confining his prayer to the benefits in SIB/LRDE and the fact that the petitioner has applied for the appointment in LRDE through proper channel and he having got appointed in LRDE, where he joined by retaining the lien of two years in the SIB and he having come back and tendered technical resignation to enable him to join the ITI, we are - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 of the view that the petitioner shall be entitled to the pro- rata benefits of the period of service put-in by him in the SIB/LRDE together. Further, it is the case of the SIB as contended by the learned counsel on instructions that the amount sent to ESIC was refunded back to the SIB which has, through Payment and Accounts Office deposited the money in the Consolidated Fund. 13. So, we hold the petitioner shall be entitled to pro-rata pension for the years of service put-in by him in the SIB/LRDE. This is for the reason that both are pensionable service. The question would now be, whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the said amount that need to be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has been pursuing the remedy for grant of the benefit since the year 2008 when he made the representation for the first time on 25.04.2008. Nothing precluded the respondents to pay the amount as per the Rules. Having denied the benefit to the petitioner, we direct the petitioner shall be entitled to the arrears of pension from - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 the date they were payable till the date of payment with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The same shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. It may be stated here that in view of our above conclusion, the finding of the Tribunal that in terms of Rule 26 for the Pension Rules having tendered resignation, the service stands forfeited is clearly untenable and erroneous. That cannot be the interpretation in the facts of this case when the petitioner has completed 10 years of service in both SIB/LRDE, together, moreso the application for appointment in LRDE has been sent through proper channel. 15. Insofar as Rule 37 of the Pension Rules is concerned, the same has no applicability in the facts of this case. It is not a case of absorption in a Corporation or a Public Sector Body, for Rule 37 of the Pension Rules to be applicable. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12443-DB WP No. 29064 of 2023 16. The impugned order dated 25.04.2023 in O.A.No.170/00762/2017 of the Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition is disposed as allowed. No costs. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18