Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 224
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. SUBHASH REDDY & A.V. SESHA SAI, JJ.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Barkatpura, Hyderabad & Another
Versus
Battula Veeraswamy & Others
Writ Appeal No. 106 of 2010
Decided On : 14-02-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: Jogram Tejavat, Standing Counsel.
For the Respondent: R1, Battula Veeraswamy (Party-in-person), R2 & R3, None appeared.
It is always open for Government and Governmental authorities to make different classifications in implementation of statutory schemes.
Headnote:Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995-Clauses 6, 7 and 17-Pension-Entitlement-Those who retired from service before introduction of new Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and who are covered by various provisions of the scheme, would constitute a separate class by themselves, as such, they cannot seek any directions pleading discrimination---It is always open for Government and Governmental authorities to make different classifications in implementation of statutory schemes under provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which is a beneficial legislation to improve benefits under such schemes and same is to be treated to be reasonable classification---There is no discrimination as recorded by Single Judge-If directions as issued by Single Judge are allowed to stand, same would amount to extending scope of scheme itself, which is not permissible in a petition filed under Article 226-Order passed by Single Judge set aside.
Result-Writ Appeal allowed.
R. Subhash Reddy. J.
1. This writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in writ petition in W.P.No.3731 of 2009, aggrieved by order dated 11.09.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition.
2. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 11.09.2009, allowed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, in which, directions are issued to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner to extend the benefits of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 to the writ petitioner and other Central Government Employees, who got absorbed in one public sector undertaking or the other like the writ petitioner.
3. The 1st respondent herein had joined in the Defence service in the Accounts Department, Government of India on 06.11.1959. While he was working as Section Officer (Accounts), he came on deputation to Mishra Dhathu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI), Hyderabad, a Government of India undertaking, on 27th January 1995. He came to be absorbed permanently in the service of MIDHANI, with effect from 01.08.1976. The Deputy Controller General of Defence Accounts (AN) conveyed through his proceedings No.29011(85)/74/ AN/E, dated 18.01.1977 with the sanction of Hon’ble President of India, for permanent absorption of writ petitioner in MIDHANI. It was also made clear in such absorption orders that he is eligible for pro rata pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity based on the qualifying service rendered by him under Government of India, till the date of permanent absorption in MIDHANI as admissible to the officers of Central Civil Services in force at that time. It is also made clear that the pro rata pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity will be disbursable to the officer in addition to his pay in MIDHANI from the date of his absorption, provided he gives an undertaking that in the event of his services being terminated at the instance of either MIDHANI or on his own, within a period of two years from the date of retirement from Government of India service and permanent absorption in MIDHANI, the approval of Government of India will be obtained by the officer before he takes up any private employment. It was also indicated that the amount of subscriptions made towards the General Provident Fund account of the 1st respondent will be transferred if he desires, to his new provident fund account at MIDHANI. In view of his absorption permanently in MIDHANI from 01.08.1976, the relationship of employer and employee between Government of India and the 1st respondent has come to an end. After his absorption into service of MIDHANI, 1st respondent/writ petitioner has become member of Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and he started making contributions to the said scheme with effect from 01.01.1977.
4. The Government of India, through Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, issued Memorandum dated 22.01.1990, calling upon the employees to exercise options for either being governed by the Family Pension Scheme of Central Government or opt for continuing under the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and issued directions accordingly to all the former employees of the Government who were absorbed in the service of public sector undertakings. The 1st respondent opted to be governed by the Family Pension Scheme of Central Government. In view of the option exercised by him to be governed by the Family Pension Scheme of the Central Government, MIDHANI has submitted applications of 26 applicants including that of the 1st respondent to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner for grant of exemption from the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme of 1971, in terms of Section 17(1)(c) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Pursuant to such communication, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner issued proceedings, dated 30.09.1991, granting exemption to the individual emp
