Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 847
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.
Uday Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Damodar Valley Corporation and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 7333 of 2022
Decided On : 08-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Durga Prasad Dutta, Souvik Sen, Sumanta Ganguly.
For the Respondents: Achinta Banerjee, Dipankar Ghosh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to the benefits of GPF and coverage under the old pension scheme governed by the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, based on the reckoning of service for pension computation and the prohibition of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
GPF - Extension of Benefits - Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The judgment discusses the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits of the General Provident Fund (GPF) and coverage under the old pension scheme governed by the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The court directs the respondents to reckon half of the service rendered by the petitioners as casual employees before their appointment for the purpose of computation of the qualifying service for pension and to disburse the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioners as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondents are further directed to allow the petitioners to exercise the option to enjoy the benefits of coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the extension of benefits of GPF and coverage under the old pension scheme governed by the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 with effect from their date of joining in Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) in 1986. The case involved a history of the petitioners' employment as casual workers in DVC, subsequent legal actions, and the issuance of appointment letters in 2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the service rendered by the petitioners as casual workers before their appointment should be reckoned for the purpose of commutation of qualifying service for pension. The court also held that the petitioners are entitled to claim coverage under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, the court did not accede to the petitioners' prayer for a direction to fix their pay and release arrear salary w.e.f. 31.03.2010.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the petitioners to GPF benefits and coverage under the old pension scheme, the reckoning of service for pension computation, and the legality of the appointment and probation period imposed on the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits of GPF and coverage under the old pension scheme. The court emphasized the principles of equal pay for equal work and the prohibition of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to reckon half of the service rendered by the petitioners as casual employees before their appointment for the purpose of computation of the qualifying service for pension and to disburse the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioners as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondents were further directed to allow the petitioners to exercise the option to enjoy the benefits of coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.
1. The present writ petition was preferred praying for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authorities of Damodar Valley Corporation (in short, DVC) to extend the benefits of GPF as well as coverage under the old pension scheme governed by the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short, the Pension Rules, 1972) with effect from their date of joining in DVC i.e. from 1986 in place of National Pension Scheme (in short, NPS) adopted by DVC in terms of Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2020 and fix the petitioners’ pay and release their arrear salaries w.e.f. 31.03.2010 in terms of the order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) no. 26224-26225/2019 and SLP (Civil) No. 26226-26227of 2019.
2. The case has a chequered history and hence, before going to delve into the contour of the controversy hovers around the writ petition, it would be profitable to advert to the necessitous facts frescoed in the writ petition. The petitioners joined in various departments of DVC in between 1985 to 1986 as casual workers (highly skilled category) against sanctioned posts/vacancies pursuant to an order issued by the Deputy Director of Personnel and Ex-Officio Under-Secretary of DVC. In 1986, the competent authority of DVC publish a combined panel of 111 casual workers belonging to General, SC, ST and OBC candidates and the names of the petitioners appeared against serial nos. 85, 92, 89, 95 and 81 respectively in the panel. In 1988, another panel of 11 casual workers belonging to only SC and ST candidates were published.
3. In 2001, some casual workers including the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 herein moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 8747(W) of 2001 before this Court inter-alia praying for direction for their regularization in Group-D or other equivalent posts. By an order dated 6.7.2001, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court directing the concerned authorities of DVC to decide the representation within the time specified in therein. Accordingly, the Chairman passed an order dated 1.11.2001 indicating that 74 empanelled casual workers had been appointed at the Headquarters of DVC on the basis of 1:1 quota and the case of regularization of the rest 37 empanelled casual workers would be considered against future vacancies. In 2007, challenging inaction on the part of the concerned authorities of DVC to absorb the casual workers in existing vacancies, a writ petition being W.P. No. 20139(w) of 2007 was instituted which was disposed of by an order dated 26.1.2009 holding inter alia that a substantial numbers of listed casual workers had been given regular employment and a small numbers of casual workers were waiting for that benefit and accordingly, the Chairman concerned was asked to consider the case of regular employment of the petitioners therein within the time stipulated therein.
4. In obedience to the order dated 26.1.2009, the Chairman by his order dated 12.03.2010 constituted a committee to assess the actual manpower requirement in Group-D posts both in the Head quarter and in field formation. The order dated 12.03.2010 was called in question by some of empanelled casual workers by preferring a W.P. No. 22988(W) of 2010. By an order dated 28.08.2014, the writ petition being W.P. No. 22988(W) of 2010 were disposed of with following directions:
(i) not to fill up any permanent vacancy, except the first considering the case of the petitioners therein, subject to the educational and other qualifications of such petitioners vis-a-vis the vacancy available.
(ii) to disclose the position and status of the petitioner in the panel after the latest absorption.
(iii) if any vacancy arises in future and if the respondents decide to absorb any casual employee for the panel , they shall not do it without considering the cases of the empanelled candidates according to their rank in the panel.
5. The petitioners came to learn that one D
