1. Retired railway employee seeking conversion from Provident Fund to Pension Scheme based on a Tribunal order extending benefits to similarly placed retirees. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 71
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. SAHAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.
R. Subramaniam, Petitioner
Versus
Chief Personnel Officer, Central Railway, Ministry of Railways, Respondent.
Writ Petn. (Civil) No.981 of 1993
Decided on 16-1-1995
Important Points
The Court held that retired railway employees similarly situated to those granted benefits by the Central Administrative Tribunal are entitled to opt for the Pension Scheme, provided they refund the amount previously received under the Provident Fund system.
Subject
Pension Scheme - Railway Employees
Act Referred
Headnote
PETITIONER ENTITLED TO THE SAME BENEFIT OF PENSION SCHEME AS GRANTED TO OTHERS BY CAT.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks parity with other employees granted pension benefits by the Tribunal; Union resists the claim. (Para 1 )
3. The Union cannot resist the claim since the Tribunal's order, upheld by the Supreme Court, extends benefits to retirees who opted for the pension scheme later. (Para 1 )
4. Where a Tribunal order extending pension benefits to a specific class of retirees is upheld, similarly placed employees are entitled to the same benefit. (Para 1 )
5. Petition allowed; respondent directed to grant pension benefits upon the petitioner depositing the received provident fund amount. (Para 2 )
6. Can a retired employee opt for a pension scheme after having previously chosen a provident fund system?
Yes, if a competent authority or tribunal directs that such an option be accepted for employees similarly placed, and such direction is upheld by the court. (Para 1 )
7. What is the condition for receiving pension benefits when switching from a provident fund system?
The employee must deposit the entire amount received under the provident fund system back to the government. (Para 2 )
ORDER
By this petition the petitioner who was a Railway employee and who retired in the year 1971 but did not opt for Pension Scheme as introduced by the Railway Board by its letter dated 16th November 1957, rather opted for the Provident Fund System seeks direction to the opposite party to grant him same benefit as was granted to others by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay by its order dated 11th November 1987. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal is extracted below :
"The respondents are directed to implement the directions given in clauses (i) to (iv) of this order in respect of all the Railway Employees who were similarly placed like the applicants i.e., those who retired during the period from 1-4-1969 to 14-7-1972 and who had indicated their option in favour of pension scheme either at any time while in service or after their retirement and who now desire to opt for the pension scheme".
It is not disputed that the S.L.P. filed by the Union against the Order has been dismissed by this Court and the Review Petition was also dismissed on 6th May 1991. The Union, in our opinion, cannot successfully resist the claim of the petitioner when the Tribunal has directed that this benefit shall be granted even to those employees who retired on or before the Pension Scheme was introduced and opt for it even now. Since the petitioner opted for the Pension Scheme in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal may be in 1990, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent should extend same benefit to the petitioner as has been extended to others.
2. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The respondent is directed to accept the option of the petitioner and grant him benefit of Pension Scheme. The petitioner is further directed to deposit the entire amount which he received in lieu of Provident Fund System within three months from the date the Government accepts the option of the petitioner. The option shall be accepted within two months from the date a copy of this order is produced.
3. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Rule made absolute.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 983 = 1996(10) SCC 72 = 1996 SCC (L & S) 1340.
