- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 30083 OF 2024 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: DR A JANARDHAN S/O KANAKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT B UR RAO SATELLITE CENTRE, (PREVIOUSLY ISRO SATELLITE CENTRE) ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560231. ALSO AT C/O DR JAGANATH 338, PRANAVENDU, 18TH MAIN, AGS LAYOUT, AREHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SKANDA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M D RAGHUNATH., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560231. 2. THE CHAIRMAN UR RAO SATELLITE CENTRE, (PREVIOUSLY ISRO SATELLITE CENTRE), ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560231. 3. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE, JANPATH BHAWAN, B WING, 8TH FLOOR, NEW DELHI - 110001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B PRAMOD., CGC FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION ON COSTS; b) ISSUE A - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-C DATED 21/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH IN OA NO.170/00077/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER NO.DS- 18017/2/2018-SECTION 6-DOS (SEC-V) DATED 20/05/2022 AND NO.020/1(1)/2022/E-II, DATED 29/03/2022 AT ANNEXURE-A17 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 THE CHAIRMAN, UR RAO SATELLITE CENTER AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner has unsuccessfully prosecuted his application in OA NO.170/00077/2023 with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [‘the Tribunal’] under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for directions to the second respondent to fix eligible pro rata pension and permit him to draw arrears and all consequential benefits while calling in question the second respondent's Communications dated 20.05.2022 and 29.03.2022. The second respondent, in these Communications dated 20.05.2022 and 29.03.2022, has opined that the petitioner in making a representation for his pro rata pension is misinterpreting the relevant rules and that he would not be eligible. 2. The Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application on the ground of delay and laches and also on the ground that the petitioner, with tendering - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 resignation, has forfeited his right as contemplated under Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services [Pension] Rules, 1972 [for short, the 'CCS Rules']. The Tribunal's finding on delay is thus: "At the outset, the OA suffers from delay and laches. Indisputably, the applicant offered his resignation to the post of Technical Assistant 'C' held in ISRO and the same was accepted by the Respondent No. 2 vide office order dated 17.12.1980 (Annexure-A5). Thereafter, the applicant had joined CMC Limited on 19.12.1980 and got relieved on 09.05.1989 submitting his resignation. No reasons, much less satisfactory reasons, are assigned by the applicant for not seeking grant of pro-rata pension after relieving from CMC Limited with effect from 09.05.1989 well within a reasonable time. The applicant has aired his voice only in the year 2020 submitting representations before the Respondent No. 2. The tardy action of the applicant remaining silent for nearly more than 3 decades and suddenly rising like a phoenix from the slumber cannot be countenanced. on the ground of delay and laches alone, OA deserves to be rejected." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 3. This Court, before adverting to the grievance as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, must record the undisputed circumstances as those would be material. The petitioner has rendered service with M/s ISRO for three years as Scientific Assistant with effect from 10.06.1977, and he is promoted as a Technical Assistant with effect from 01.10.1980. The petitioner’s resignation is accepted vide order dated 17.12.1980 and he is relieved from his role to report to duty with M/s CMC Ltd., a Government of India Enterprise as of that day. The petitioner has participated in the selection process with permission from M/s ISRO. 4. The petitioner has worked with M/s CMC Ltd. until 09.05.1989 when he is relieved on acceptance of his resignation. M/s ISRO, on the petitioner tendering resignation, has transferred the Provident Fund balance as of that date to M/s CMC - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 Ltd., and he has also received the PF amount from M/s CMC Ltd. The petitioner has corresponded both with M/s ISRO and M/s CMC Ltd. on his claim for pro rata pension. With M/s CMC Ltd. writing to M/s ISRO that the petitioner must be called upon to return the amount received to avail pro rata pension [the correspondence is in the year 2013], the petitioner has filed his application with the Tribunal not just against M/s ISRO but also against M/s CMC Ltd. 5. Sri Skanda Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because the petitioner will not forfeit past service and he would be entitled to pro rata pension as severance from M/s ISRO would be a technical severance distinct from resignation as contemplated under Rule 26 of the CCS Rules. On the question of delay and laches as observed by the Tribunal, Sri Skanda Kumar submits that the delay and laches - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 could be held against the petitioner if he was asking for an alteration in settled position but the petitioner is only seeking vindication of his right to receive pro rata pension from M/s ISRO. In fact, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs O.P. Gupta1 to emphasize the distinction between technical resignation and resignation for the purpose of Rule 26 of the CCS Rules and that delay cannot be cited when the petitioner is not seeking to alter a settled position. 6. As against these submissions, Sri B. Pramod, the learned Panel Counsel for M/s ISRO [the second respondent], submits that this Court must make a distinction in the present case from the case on hand with the Apex Court because there, the concerned was asking for counting of his past service for pension from the employer from whose services he 1 (2022) 9 SCC 785 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 had retired after having served for 26 years. The learned counsel also submits that in accordance with the CCS Rules, M/s ISRO has transferred the Provident Fund to M/s CMC Ltd., and if the petitioner could rely upon past service for pension, it should be a claim as against M/s CMC Ltd., and not against M/s ISRO with the break in continuance of the service with M/s CMC Ltd., for about 9 years. 7. This Court must also record that Mr. B. Pramod states, without dispute, that M/s CMC Ltd., is transferred to M/s TCS Ltd., a private enterprise and maybe the petitioner is prosecuting his claim against M/s ISRO only because of the afore. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions by Sri B. Pramod. If the petitioner has put in minimum qualifying years as of the date of his service with M/s CMC Ltd., he could have made a claim subject to conditions that would not defeat such claim, but the petitioner is seeking for pro rata pension for the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 service rendered with M/s ISRO counting the benefit of the service that he has rendered for M/s CMC Limited and that too his application under Section 19 is after over three decades of cessation of service with M/s CMC Ltd. 8. The petitioner, to be entitled for pro rata pension from M/s ISRO, must make out a right under the CCS Rules where it is stated that an employee would be entitled to a pension from the original employer with the benefit of the service rendered to the subsequent employer and that too on pro rata basis for the service rendered with the original employer. The Rules cannot be contrived to infer a right. Therefore, this Court does not find cause for interference, and this Court must also observe that delay is significant in the present case because there is change even in the position with M/s CMC Ltd. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42878-DB WP No. 30083 of 2024 As such the petition is rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NV