SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 10611/1996. D/d. 09.08.2001.

Nani Gopal Dutta - Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Ors. - Respondents

Service Law - Pensionary benefits - Appellant claimed entitlement in service until he attained age of 60 years in terms of Rule 56 (B) of the Fundamental Rules, 1922 - Nature of establishment whether industrial or work-charged - Not proved - Workman retiring on attaining the age of 60 years under an interim order - Retiree/Appellant received full benefits of salary - Held - Due to special features of the case, irrespective of the nature of the establishment, it would not be appropriate to deny the appellant of the benefits of pension arising from the enhanced pay for the last two years.

[Para 3]

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - The appellant before us was an employee in Small Industries Services Institute at Calcutta. He claimed that he is entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of 60 years in terms of Rule 56 (B) of the Fundamental Rules, 1922.

2. The Tribunal before whom he made that claim noticed that for becoming a workman in such an establishment he has to establish that he is employed in industrial or a work-charge establishment. It was accepted that the institute where the appellant is working is not a work-charge establishment. It was not very clear from the material placed before the Tribunal as to whether it amounted to an industrial establishment or not. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no material to come to the conclusion that the said establishment is not an industrial establishment. In these circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal though appears to be correct, the facts in this case are rather glaring.

3. The appellant having continued in employment up to the age of 60 years pursuant to the interim order granted and he having received the full benefits of salary, we do not think it would be appropriate to deny him of the benefits of pension arising from enhanced pay for that period of two years either. In special features of this case, we think such a relief should be ordered irrespective whether the said institute is an industrial establishment or not.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Appeal allowed.