Amendments to employment pension schemes cannot apply retrospectively to employees who separated prior to the scheme's effective date, ensuring entitlements under the previous terms of employment remain valid.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J. (Through Video Conferencing)--This petition is filed by petitioner for directions against the respondents to extend pension as promised in the letter of appointment, under the Scheme of "Contributory Superannuation Benefit Fund" of GAIL, although, terms and conditions as mentioned, in the Scheme have been satisfied by the petitioner.

2. One of the pre-condition of the Respondent's Pension Scheme was "the pension shall be payable on attaining the notional age of superannuation, provided, the minimum eligibility period is continuous 15 years of service in GAIL with a rider that in case anyone, who has served less than 15 years of service but prefers to get separated from office he/she can contribute remaining period in one go for being eligible for pension". The petitioner on completion of 14 years and one month of service, was asked by respondent to pay Rs.45,604/- for the shortfall period for the purpose of availing pension under the old scheme and the said amount was also accepted on being deposited by the petitioner. However, the respondent company refused to process and pay pension to the petitioner by taking recourse of revised/amended scheme, namely, "Defined Contribution Fund, 2007" which was notified on 04.04.2014 which makes an employee entitled to pension only, if an employee has put in job of minimum 15 years of continuous service, with no relaxation, irrespective of the fact the said amended scheme was not applicable in the petitioner's case as he got separated from GAIL prior to effective date i.e. 01.01.2007. It is alleged, the old scheme of 2000 would govern the case of petitioner, as he got separated from GAIL when the old scheme was in force.

3. It was argued by the respondent since the Trustees had a power to revise the scheme, hence it was revised in the year 2007 and thereafter only those persons who had completed 15 years of service, could avail the benefit of pension. Regarding an employee Rajiv Khanna, it was argued he was also wrongly paid the pension and ought not to have been paid.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent also referred to Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors., MANU/SC/0582/2020 to say if there is a change in law during the pendency of the case, the later law be applied. The Court noted:

"95. In United Bank of India, Calcutta v. Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., MANU/SC/0551/2000: AIR 2000 SC 2957, with respect to change in law during the pendency of proceedings, it was observed:

20. Now, it is well settled that it is the duty of a court, whether it is trying original proceedings or hearing an appeal, to take notice of the change in law affecting pending actions and to give effect to the same. (See G.P. Singh: Interpretation of Statutes, 7th Edn., p. 406). If, while a suit is pending, a law like the 1993 Act that the Civil Court shall not decide the suit, is passed, the Civil Court is bound to take judicial notice of the statute and hold that the suit--even after its remand--cannot be disposed of by it."

5. Similarly the respondent referred to B.T. Manglani vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anr. in W.P.(C) 2286/2015 decided on 02.06.2016 and to P. Bandopadhya and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., MANU/SC/0378/2019 on this issue.

6. She also referred to various annexures including an office memorandum dated 26.11.2008 viz. Annexure-R1, which read as under:

"v) Superannuation Benefits: CPSEs would be allowed 30% of Basic Pay as Superannuation benefits, which may include Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), Gratuity, Pension and Post-Superannuation Medical Benefits. The CPSEs should make their own schemes to manag