1998 Supreme(SC) 879

1998(6) Supreme 566
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
S.C. Agrawal & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Transport Manager, Pune Municipal Corporation Transport Undertaking -Appellant
versus
Vasant Gopal Bhagwat (dead) by LRs. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4472 of 1988
(@ SLP (Civil) No. 12349 of 1996)
Decided on 27-8-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.N. Ganpule, Sr. Advocate, Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Satish K. Agnihotri, Mrs. Yogmaya Agnihotri, (A.K. Tiwari) Advocate (NP), and Uday Umesh Lalit, Advocates.

Headnote:Service Law-Pension-Respon­dents retired employees of Transport Undertaking of Pune Municipal Corporation-Governed by contri­butory provident fund scheme-Municipal Corporation framed pen­sion scheme for its employees-Employees of Transport Undertaking not included in pension scheme as Transport Undertaking was sepa­rate autonomous body-In 1970 Muni­cipal Corporation framed pen­sion regulation for employees of Transport Undertaking effective from 1.4.1967-Municipal Corporation passed resolution in 1986 extending pension rules to its employees with retrospective effect from 1.1.1957-Even in case where a pensioner had died benefit made available to his heirs-Writ peti­tion to apply resolution of 1986 so as to extend benefit of scheme to employees of Transport Undertaking even though they had opted or governed by P.F. Scheme-High Court held employees of Transport Under­takings are also employees of Municipal Corporation-Entitled to same benefit-Whether correct-No-Employees of Transport Undertaking governed by different set of rules-Nature of work done by them and municipal employees prima facie not identical-Scheme applied insofar as pension is concerned to employees of Transport Undertaking entirely different from that of Municipal Corporation-High Court’s order set aside.

       Held : The position is that the employees of the Transport Undertaking are governed by different set of rules. The employees of the Transport Undertaking are appointed pursuant to Chapter XX of the Act and are subject to Poona Municipal Transport Service Regulations. The nature of the work done by them and other Municipal employees cannot prima facie be identical. There was a Provident Fund Scheme introduced to the em­ployees of the Transport Undertaking framed under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and all the respondents had drawn the bene­fits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Under the Provident Fund Scheme a contribution matching that of the employees is made by the Transport Undertaking. Therefore, the Scheme applied insofar as pension is concerned to the employees of the Transport Undertaking was entirely different from that of the Municipal Corporation. (Para 4)

       The Scheme provided that modifications thereof were to be effective from 1.4.1967. The High Court took the view that the cut of date is arbitrary and there is no rational basis in fixing the same. It is brought to our notice that an agreement was entered into with the employees of the Transport Undertaking Corporation and the Corporation and the agreement became effective from 1st April, 1967 and in those circumstances the particular date had been fixed. If that it do, it cannot be said that the appellants have chosen the out of date arbi­trarily and is therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 5)

       It is only for the first time in the year 1970 that the Corporation framed Pension Regulations for the employees of the Transport Under­taking. Until then there was no pension scheme available to the em­ployees in the Transport Undertaking of the Corporation. The said Scheme was modified from time to time and the resolutions were passed by the Municipal Corporation whenever it wanted to make it applicable specifically to the employees of the Transport Undertaking, the same was specifically mentioned. When there was no such mention of the benefit of the scheme, it was not open to the High Court to extend the benefit thereof from an anterior date to the employees in question. The basis upon which the distinction was maintained between the two classes of employees was not appreciated by the High Court. The same was brushed aside by stating that such a reason could hardly be a basis for meting out different treatment to different department in vital matters like pension and other post retirement benefits. One cannot be dogmatic in such matter. Introduction of the Provident Fund Scheme and application of the Pension Scheme only from the year 1970 was in the background set forth above. If these aspects make it clear that the High Court appears to have slipped into such an error. (Para 6)

       Consequently held : The view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The order made by the High Court, therefore, is set aside. (Para 7)