' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Syed All Akhtar has preferred this appeal for grant of pension/gratuity benefits for the service he rendered with FIA. His case briefly stated, is that he joined FIA on deputation from G.H.Q. (Ministry of Defence) as a Superintendent on 19-4- 1976. He opted premature retirement from his parent department viz. G.H.Q. On 1-2-1977. He sought re-employment as a Superintendent with FIA with effect from 25-9-1978. He attained the age of superannuation on 17-8-1987 and retired. He made representation for pensionary benefits for the service rendered with the FIA by condoning the gap in his service. His request was not acceded to.
He made departmental appeal to the Secretary, Establishment Division. He did not receive any order on his appeal and he preferred this appeal on 31-12-1988.
2. The respondents have resisted the appeal contending that the appellant did not put up requisite service qualifying for pensionary benefits with the F.IA. And he was not entitled to any relief. They have also raised the plea that the appeal is time-barred and is not maintainable even otherwise.
3. The history of the service of the appellant is depicted in the written objections filed by the respondents. It is stated therein that the appellant was an Assistant (BPS-11) in G.H.Q. And he was promoted as Office Superintendent (BPS-14) with effect from 19-4-1976 and was sent on deputation for three years to the FIA on his own application dated 14-1-1976 and was relieved on 19-4-1976 to join his new assignment. He sought premature retirement from G.H.Q. By making an application dated 11-8-1976. He was called back to his parent department. He proceeded on L P R with effect from 1-2-1977 and was given pension and other benefits. He sought re-employment with the HA with effect from 25-9-1978. He retired from service with the FIA on 17-8-1987 on attaining the age of superannuation. These facts are supported by the copies of the relevant orders filed along with the written objections. They have not been controverted by the appellant. The appellant had two spells of service with the HA. In the first spell from 19-4-1976 to 31-1-1977, he served there on deputation. Thereafter, he proceeded on L.P.R. And actually retired from service and availed of pensionary benefits of his previous service. He rejoined FIA by way of re-employment on 28-9-1978 i,e, after a gap of one year, eight months and twenty seven days. The second spell of his service with FIA commenced from 28-9-1978, as aforesaid, and it terminated on 17-8-1987 when he retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation and the tenure was eight years, ten months and twenty days. His previous service with the FIA was on deputation and he went back to his parent department at his own request and he remained out of the service for more than one and half years and he could not count his previous service with the G.H.Q. For earning benefits of his regular service with the FIA by way of re-employment which was short of the minimum period of ten years for entitlement to pensionary benefits.
4. The appellant has argued the appeal himself and placed reliance on the provions of CSRs-421 and 422 and he has made pertinent reference to Note 3 below CSR-422, but both the rules are not attracted in his case. CSR-421 provides that the authority who sanctions the pension may commute respective periods of absence without leave into leave without allowances. In the appellant's case, question of absence without leave was not involved. CSR-422 provides that a competent authority may condone all interruptions in the service of an officer and the Note-3 below thereunder provides that usually condonation of interruptions are not allowed unless there are some reasons for doing so, i,e, if it can be shown that the Government servant had good reasons for resigning his appointment in the first instance or if he was compelled by reasons beyond his control (e.g. Through his illness etc.) to quit service before due time and it is considered fit to permit him to count certain past qualifying service for pension. In the appellant's case, he himself sought premature retirement from his parent department and availed of L.P.R. And earned pensionary benefits of his previous service and sought re-employment with FIA after the gap of more than one and half years. Thus, the appellant could not get the period between the day of his premature retirement from the parent department and his re-employment with the FIA condoned and his request was rightly rejected by the FIA.
5. The appellant has next made reference to the cases of two persons, namely Anwar Saeed and Abdur Rashid who, according to him, were allowed condonation of gap in their service for earning pensionary benefits of service. The case of Anwar Saeed, referred to by him, pertains to different department. As regards the case of Abdur Rashid, the contention of the department is that he (Abdur Rashid) had put in more than ten years service on his re-employment with the FIA and, therefore, he was entitled to pensionary benefits. Thus, the case of Abdur Rashid was distinguishable from the appellant's case.
6. As' regards the question of limitation raised by the respondents, the appellant's representation dated 16-8-1987 to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, was rejected as per Memo dated 10-9-1987.
This was the final order. However, he made an application/appeal to the Secretary, Establishment Division on 21-5-1988. Even if this application is treated as a departmental appeal, although no such appeal lies, it was time-barred and the appellant could not escape the period of limitation by just making an application and then coming to the Tribunal after awaiting order thereon for 90 days. The appeal is, therefore, time-barred as well.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal has no merit and it is also I C time-barred and it is dismissed as such.