Appellant denied pension, entitled to gratuity under Sales Tax Rules.

The Court held that the appellant, a chartered accountant serving as a non-official Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, was not entitled to a superannuation pension under the Mysore Civil Services Rules. The Court emphasized that the appellant's service was governed by the Sales Tax Rules, which explicitly stated his ineligibility for a pension but entitled to gratuity based on completed years of service. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the appellant could not claim pensionary benefits based on the specific provisions of the Sales Tax Rules.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility of a chartered accountant appointed as a non-official Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for superannuation pension.
2. Applicability of Mysore Civil Services Rules to the case.
3. Interpretation of rule 64(6) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules.
4. Consideration of the terms and conditions of the appellant's appointment.

Analysis:

The appellant, a chartered accountant, was appointed as a non-official Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Karnataka. The issue revolved around his entitlement to superannuation pension upon relinquishing his post. The appellant contended that being a government servant, he should receive the pension as per the Mysore Civil Services Rules. However, the Court examined the terms of his appointment and the relevant rules governing his service. The Court highlighted that rule 64(6) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules explicitly stated that the non-official Member was not eligible for a pension, but only for gratuity based on completed years of service. The Court emphasized that the appellant's service was governed by the Sales Tax Rules, not the Civil Services Rules, and thus, he was not entitled to a superannuation pension.

The Court further analyzed the insertion of rule 64(6) in 1964 and its substitution in 1971. It dismissed the appellant's argument that the rule was not applicable to him due to its post-appointment introduction, emphasizing that the rule applied at the time of his service termination. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that the appellant could not claim pensionary benefits based on rule 64(6) of the Sales Tax Rules.

Regarding the applicability of Mysore Civil Services Rules, the Court examined rule 2(2) which exempted individuals covered by specific laws from the Civil Services Rules. Since rule 64(6) explicitly stated the ineligibility of the non-official Member for a pension, the Civil Services Rules did not apply to the appellant. Additionally, the Court noted the absence of a specific retirement age for non-official Members, further supporting the exclusion of Civil Services Rules in determining pension entitlement.

Lastly, the Court considered the terms and conditions of the appellant's appointment, highlighting that it was periodical and part-time, unlike the whole-time service required of government servants. The Court emphasized that the appellant's appointment did not align with the criteria under the Civil Services Rules for superannuation pension eligibility. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal without costs.

In conclusion, the judgment affirmed that the appellant, as a non-official Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, was not entitled to a superannuation pension under the Mysore Civil Services Rules due to the explicit provisions in the Mysore Sales Tax Rules governing his service.

---