In C.A. No. 413 of 2023-SC- Even as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, respondent could not have been given  pensionary/terminal benefits as Scientist -H in NTRO: SC allows  National Technical Research Organization’s appeal against order granting benefits to Scientist who was relieved
Justices M.R. Shah & Hima Kohli [17-02-2023] 

Read Judgment: NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION & OTHERS V. DIPTI DEODHARE 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, February 20, 2023:  Once, a scientist has been relieved from NTRO and has reported for duty as Scientist – G in DRDO, thereafter she/ he cannot be permitted to claim that she had continued working as Scientist – H in NTRO, the Supreme Court has observed.

While allowing the appeal instituted by the National Technical Research Organization, against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court whereby the respondent was held entitled to benefit of past service that she had rendered in DRDO for computing her terminal benefits, the Division bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice M.R. Shah held that  as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, she could not have been given the pensionary benefits / terminal benefits as Scientist -H in NTRO. 

The facts leading to the present appeal appeal were that the respondent- original writ petitioner joined the services of Defence Research Development Organization as Scientist B.  She got periodical promotions while working with the DRDO.Subsequently,  she was promoted as Scientist G and was heading the Intelligent Systems and Robotics Division in Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics of DRDO at Bangalore. 

In the month of January, 2018, the NTRO issued a recruitment notification to fill up two posts of Scientist H in Level 15 of the pay matrix. Initially, the notification stated that the recruitment was to be made on deputation including short term contract basis. However, subsequently, a corrigendum was published in the month of January, 2018 to fill up these posts on deputation (including short term)/absorption, failing which, on direct recruitment basis. 

The original writ petitioner, who was holding the post of Scientist G in Level 14 of the pay matrix at CAIR, DRDO, applied for the post of Scientist H in NTRO through her parent department, i.e., DRDO. Consequent to the approval of the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for appointment in NTRO as Scientist H ,  the original writ petitioner was issued an offer of appointment on the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment including probation for a period of one year. On being selected and appointed as Scientist H in NTRO on direct recruitment basis, the respondent – original writ petitioner tendered her technical resignation from the post of Scientist G in DRDO, which came to be accepted and DRDO relieved her to take up the new appointment in NTRO.

However, thereafter while she was on probation as Scientist H in NTRO, the ACC   granted approval for her premature repatriation from the post of Scientist H (on probation) in NTRO to her parent department cadre – DRDO with immediate effect.

In view of the same, the petitioner was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the order dated February 12, 2019 was an order of discharge simpliciter during her probation period and as she had earlier rendered technical resignation from DRDO and/or appointment with DRDO on tendering a technical resignation, she continued to have lien with the DRDO and therefore, she was rightly repatriated to DRDO.

By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court  set aside the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) and others had preferred the present appeal.

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that the respondent was appointed as Scientist – H in NTRO as a direct recruit, on probation and her probation period was not completed. Before her probation period was completed/over, she was relieved. Therefore, even as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, she could not have been given the pensionary benefits / terminal benefits as Scientist -H in NTRO, the Court noted. 

In furtherance of the same, the Court noted that the High  Court  committed a serious error in observing that the original writ petitioner – respondent herein would be entitled to all such benefits as are permissible to her on the premise that she held the post of Scientist – H and the last pay drawn in that post would be the criteria for settling all her benefits. 

“Once, she was relieved from NTRO and she had reported for duty as Scientist – G in DRDO, thereafter she cannot be permitted to claim that she had continued working as Scientist – H in NTRO”. 

The Court  failed to appreciate under which provision, the High Court issued such a direction that she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the benefit of past services that she had rendered in DRDO for computing her terminal benefits directed to be paid by NTRO. The directions issued by the High Court are self-contradictory, the Court further remarked. 

Hence, in view of the observations stated above, the impugned order was set aside and the writ appeal was accordingly allowed.