Back
2015 Supreme(Guj) 1063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
AKIL KURESHI, SONIA GOKANI, JJ.
N.K. Shah & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Physical Research Laboratory & Anr. - Respondents
Special Civil Application Nos. 15472 & 15507 of 2010
Decided On : 10-02-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Sinha, Mr. K.B. Pujara,
For the Respondents: Mr. Dilip L. Kanojiya, Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala
Important Point :
Administrative staff members also would be entitled to pension options.
Headnote:Service Law - Pensionary Benefits—Distinction sought to be drawn by respondents while giving successive fresh pension options to scientific and technical staff to total exclusion of administrative staff on as many as three occasions is simply not sustainable in law---Administrative staff members also would be entitled to such pension options---However, many of the administrative staff members retired from active service long many years back and accepted their provident fund and other dues without protest or murmur---They have never claimed pension option---It would be wholly impermissible and inequitable to grant them fresh option at this stage in some cases, nearly twenty years after their retirement---Benefit of pension option would be confined to petitioners who have during their active service agitated their exclusion from such pension option and have also taken active steps before Courts of law---While they would get such option, employer's contribution towards CPF which they have already received would have to be adjusted against pension payable to them.
Result : Petitions allowed.
Akil Kureshi, J.
1. These petitions arise out of common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners are existing and retired employees of the respondent no. 1-Physical Research Laboratory [“PRL” for short]. They belong to the administrative staff. They are clamoring for their pensionery benefits, which according to them were denied to them by the illegal and discriminatory action on the part of PRL. In these petitions, they have challenged the common judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Transfer Application No. 3 of 2009 and connected proceedings. Brief facts are as under :-
3. All the petitioners are employees of PRL. Few of them are still in active service. Rest have retired during the pendency of these proceedings. They belong to administrative staff of the PRL. They were governed by certain set of service conditions, particularly pertaining to their pay and allowances and post retiral benefits.
4. On 6th February 1986, PRL circulated a notice to its staff members stating that the Government of India had decided that the autonomous bodies which are financed by the Government of India should not have terms and conditions of service at variance with those of the Central Government employees; except House Rent Allowance. Under the circumstances, in order to bring the PRL employees at par with the Central Government employees in the Department of Space, they would be offered a new set of benefits, which would be known as Package-II, likely to be effective from 1st April 1986. The existing employees would have an option to retain the benefits of the present set of conditions, which would be referred to as Package-I. Along with such circular, the set of service conditions in the form of Package-I & II were also circulated. Pursuant to such general notice, PRL issued a notice dated 8th May 1986 to all its regular employees reiterating that they would have an option to be governed by the set of conditions similar to those available to the Central Government employees in the Department of Space, unless they chose to continue to be governed by existing conditions as in Package I. All employees appointed after 1st July 1986 will automatically be covered by Package-II. Package-II itself contained an option either to opt for Contributory Provident Fund [“CPF” for short] or to opt for General Provident Fund [“GPF” for short] with pension. It was clarified that if no option is received before 15th June 1986, the concerned employees would be deemed to have opted for Package-II. On 6th June 1986, PRL issued a corrigendum providing that if no option is exercised by 30th June 1986, the employee concerned would be governed by Package-I.
5. On 16th June 1987, PRL circulated a notice providing that those of the employees, who had opted for Package-I, would have an option to switch over to Package-II. Two things may be noticed from this circular. Firstly, it was common to all employees of PRL without any distinction whether the employee concerned belonged to administrative or scientific/technical establishment. Secondly, that though not specified in Package-II itself, there was an inbuilt option to either opt for CPF or Pension Scheme. It was provided that choice once exercised would be final and further that this was the last chance being given to the employees to move over to the Government benefits [Package-II].
6. After implementation of the recommendations of Fourth Central Pay Commission, Government of India issued Office Memorandum dated 21st October 1987 covering scientific organizations under the Department of Space and provided that all existing administrative staff in DOS/ISRO who were governed by CPF scheme and who were in service as on 1st January 1986 and are still in service would be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. The administrative staff however would have an option to continue to be governed by the CPF scheme. Such opt
