Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1341

2009(5) Supreme 665
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others — Appellants
versus
Bachan Singh — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.23708 of 2005)
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 4904-4913 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5787, 7294, 8267, 8986, 10462, 12856, 12354, 17243, 16411, 16580 of 2006)
Civil Appeal Nos. 4914-4937 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1241, 1786, 3882, 3194, 3680, 3710, 4897, 4075, 6863, 7003, 9388, 8236, 7502, 7572, 7606, 8235, 12454, 12253, 19184, 18120, 19301, 7930, 24583 of 2007
Civil Appeal Nos. 4938-4941 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14935, 17910, 27760 & 20584 of 2008)
and
Civil Appeal Nos. 4942-4944 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3766, 3889 & 6240 of 2009)
Decided on : 30-07-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Sandeep Chaturvedi, Sanjay Singh, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Manjit Singh, B.S. More, AAG, B.S. Malik, Sr. ADv., Pranab Kumar Mullick, S.K. Patri, Shish Pal Laler, Balbir Singh Gupta, Manoj Swarup, Akshat Goel, Ms. Jyoti Srivastav a, Ms. Hetu Arora, Arvind Minocha, R.K. Rathore, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Jasbir Singh Malik, Daya Krishan Sharma, Gagan Gupta, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Gaurav Twatia, B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Nitin Jain, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Gunjan Sinha, Anis Ahmed Khan, Shashi Bhushan, Ms. Mansi Dhiman, Ms. Gunjan Sinha, Shashi Bhushan, Ms. Vivekta Singh, B.K. Satija, S.K. Sabharwal, Binay Kumar Jha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, T.V. George, Amit Singh, Ms. Kusum Singh, R.C. Gaushik, V. Balaji, Pravesh Thakur, Narendra Kumar, S.S. Dhahiya, Santosh Krishnan, Debasis Misra, Dr. Ramesh K. Haritash, Dr. Kailash Chand, Ms. Divya Godra, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Himanshu Upadhyay, Nitin Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Suresh Kumari, Arvind Nayar, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
A discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which initself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.

Headnote:Service Law – Grant of pensionary benefits – Respondents joined services of appellant as Laboratory Attendant in work-charge capacity and continued to perform his duties on work-charge basis on different posts until he was regularized as Head Ministry- During period he remained a work-charge employee, respondent had attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service – The appellants computed respondent’s pensionary benefits by taking into account only the services rendered by him on regular basis and he was denied benefits of the services rendered by him on work-charge basis – Writ petition thereagainst – Allowed by High Court holding that it would be unreasonable to deny pensionary benefits to the respondent despite circulars issued by appellants for the same – Appeal – Any discriminatory action on the part of the Government would be liable to be struck down – Hence, held that , it would be totally unreasonable and irrational to deny the respondent the pensionary benefits under the scheme particularly when the appellants failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing by the respondent – In the absence of any such material it could well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants – View taken by High Court in the impugned judgment being rational, just and fair view no interference was called for – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 25 to 28)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. Respondents joined services of appellant as Laboratory Attendant in work-charge capacity and continued to perform his duties on work-charge basis on different posts until he was regularized as Head Mistry herein in the instant case. During period he remained a work-charge employee, respondent had attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service. The appellants computed respondent’s pensionary benefits by taking into account only the services rendered by him on regular basis and he was denied benefits of the services rendered by him on work.charge basis. Writ petition thereagainst was Allowed by High Court holding that it would be unreasonable to deny pensionary benefits to the respondent despite circulars issued by appellants for the same.
        2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Held Any discriminatory action on the part of the Government would be liable to be struck down. Hence, held that , it would be totally unreasonable and irrational to deny the respondent the pensionary benefits under the scheme particularly when the appellants failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing by the respondent. In the absence of any such material it could well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants. View taken by High Court in the impugned judgment being rational, just and fair view no interference was called for. Appeals were dismissed.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.—

1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

3. Basic controversy involved in all these appeals is of similar nature. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to recapitulate the facts incorporated in Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 2009 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.23708 of 2005 filed against the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No.3729 of 2004 on dated 28.7.2005.

4. The respondents herein has joined the services of the appellant as Laboratory Attendant in work-charge capacity on 16.5.1963 and continued to perform his duties on work-charge basis on different posts until he was regularized as Head Mistry w.e.f. 14.10.1981. The respondent was a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme (for short ‘EPF Scheme’). During the period he remained a work-charge employee, the respondent had attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service on 28.2.2001. The appellants computed respondent’s pensionary benefits by taking into account only the services rendered by him on regular basis and he was denied benefits of the services rendered by him w.e.f. 16.5.1963 to 13.10.1981 on work-charge basis.

5. The appellants had issued instructions dated 6.8.1993 for the grant of benefit of work-charge service towards pensionary benefits. The said letter of 6.8.1993 is reproduced as under:-

“From :

The Additional Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB), Panchkula

Memo No. Ch.9/Pen/G-G-43(93) Dated 6.8.93

Sub: Amendment in the Punjab CSR Vol.II-Adoption of State Govt. Notification

The Haryana State Electricity Board in its meeting held on 23.6.1993 has approved the adoption of Haryana Govt. Notification No.1/2 (55)-88-2 FR-II dated 4.2.92 (copy enclosed for ready reference) with regard to the counting of service rendered by the workers in the work charged capacity towards pensionary benefit scheme.

2. However, most of the Board’s workcharged employees are members of Employees Provident Fund (EPF). As such, the pensionary benefit would be subject to the following conditions:-

i) On regularization from workcharged to regular employee, the employee has to submit an option within a period of 3 months from the date of regularization or from the date of issue of this circular, whichever is later as to whether he/she intends to count the period of workcharged service rendered by him/her towards pensionary benefits or intends to continue to be a member of EPF. The option is required to be furnished in writing to his drawing & Disbursing Officer who will authenticate and record its entry in the service book of the employee and also paste the same in the service book so as to form a permanent record for future reference. The Drawing & Disbursing Officer will also inform about his/her option to the appointing authority immediately.

ii) The option once exercised will be final and not to be allowed to be changed in any circumstances. In case option is not given within the stipulated period of three months, it will be presumed that he/she intends to continue to be a member of EPF.

iii) In case, he/she opts for pensionary benefits, he/she has to refund the entire amount of employee’s contribution along with interest thereon, towards their EPF in lumpsum for crediting to the Board’s account, Employee’s contribution alongwith interest is to be deposited with the Board for crediting to his/her GPF account.

3. Similarly, the above benefit will also be available to the pensioners/recipients of family pension of the Board on the same terms and conditions with the exception that they will have to deposit the amount contributed by the Board as Employee’s contribution towards EPF alongwith interest thereon, in lumpsum. The pensioners/recipients of family pension will have to give an Affidavit to the fact that he/she will not claim any interest on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1341

IMPORTANT POINT A discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which initself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
A discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which initself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.