Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM, J.
The Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shri Mukut Das, S/o. Late Madhab Chandra Das & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 107, 272 of 2023
Decided On : 05-08-2024
PENSION - RETIREMENT BENEFITS - ROP RULES, 2017: RULE 1, RULE 4(a), RULE 32(1)(b) - The court analyzed the Revised Pay Rules, 2017, particularly focusing on Rule 4(a) which applies to employees in service on 31.03.2016, and Rule 32(1)(b) which pertains to pensioners who retired on or before that date. The court interpreted that the private respondents, having retired on 31.03.2016, could not claim benefits under the revised rules effective from 01.04.2016, as they were not in service on that date. The court concluded that their pension should be determined under Rule 32(1)(b), which was correctly applied by the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The private respondents retired as General Managers from APGCL on 31.03.2016. After retirement, their pension and other benefits were calculated under Rule 32(1)(b) of the ROP Rules, 2017. They contested this calculation, claiming their benefits should be determined under Rule 4 of the same rules, which they argued applied to them as they were in service until 31.03.2016.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the private respondents had not acquired the status of pensioners until 01.04.2016, as they retired on 31.03.2016. Therefore, they were not entitled to the benefits under Rule 4(a) of the ROP Rules, 2017, which applies to employees in service on that date. The court upheld the application of Rule 32(1)(b) for determining their pension.
Issues: Whether the private respondents, who retired on 31.03.2016, are entitled to pension benefits under Rule 4 of the ROP Rules, 2017, which came into effect on 01.04.2016, or under Rule 32(1)(b) applicable to those who retired before that date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the private respondents, having retired on 31.03.2016, could not be classified as existing pensioners under Rule 32(1) as they did not acquire pensioner status until 01.04.2016. The provisions of Rule 4(a) do not apply to them, and their entitlements must be calculated under Rule 32(1)(b).
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the private respondents, affirming that their pension and benefits were correctly calculated under Rule 32(1)(b) of the ROP Rules, 2017.
JUDGMENT :
Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.
Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants in both the writ appeals. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.107/2023; Mr. S. Muktar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.272/2023 and Mr. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL.
2. These 2(two) writ appeals have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment & orders dated 03.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1607/2020 and dated 16.06.2023 passed in WP(C) No.3446/2023. Judgment & Order dated 16.06.2023 in WP(C) No.3446/2023 has been passed by the learned Single Judge while relying on the judgment & order dated 03.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1607/2020.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the private respondents in both these writ appeals had retired from the posts of General Manager in the Assam Power General Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as “APGCL”) on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016. After their retirement, entitlements of the private respondents like, pension, Commuted Value of Pension (CVP), Retirement Gratuity, Family Pension, etc., were determined and disbursed.
4. Pursuant to the resolution No.5 dated 22.11.2017, the Board of Directors of the APGCL was pleased to revise the pay and allowances of the employees and pensioners of the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) and its successor Companies, i.e. Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGCL), Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited (AECGL) and accordingly, an Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2017 was issued in the name and style of “Revision of Pay Rules, 2017” (hereinafter to be referred as “ROP Rules, 2017”). Rule 1(ii) of ROP Rules, 2017 provides that the ROP Rules, 2017 came into force on 01.04.2016.
5. The appellant APGCL fixed the pension of the private respondents as per the provisions of Rule 32(1)(b) of the ROP Rules, 2017 and being aggrieved with the same, the private respondents filed representations before the Chairman, APGCL on 07.02.2018 and 23.07.2018, respectively, claiming that their pension should be fixed by revising their last pay as per the latest ROP Rules, as they were in service till 31.03.2016.
6. When their representations were not acted upon, further representations were submitted by the private respondents. However, when their representations were not duly considered, they approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions claiming that the pension and other benefits of the private respondents are required to be determined as per Rule 4 of the ROP Rules, 2017 instead of Rule 32 of the said Rules.
7. In the writ petitions, the claim of the writ petitioners/private respondents was contested by the appellants. However, the learned Single Judge has allowed the WP(C) No.1607/2020 filed on behalf of the respondent Mukut Das vide judgment dated 03.11.2020 while issuing a direction to the respondents in the writ petition (appellants herein) to work out the entitlements of the respondent/writ petitioner Mukut Das, as pensioner, under different heads, like pension, Computed Value of Pension (CVP), Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Leave Encashment benefits, etc., as per Rule 4 of the ROP Rules, 2017. It was further directed that if after such exercise, the respondent Mukut Das was found entitled for enhanced amount than what had been worked out by the Office Order dated 31.03.2016, the same should be disbursed to him in expeditious manner within 6(six) months from the date of submission of certified copy of that judgment & order. As observed earlier, the writ petition filed on behalf of Anal Kumar Bhagabati was disposed of vide order dated 16.06.2023 in terms of the judgment & order dated 03.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1607/2020. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2022 are quoted herein :
Employees who retire before the implementation of revised pay rules cannot claim benefits under those rules; their entitlements must be determined according to the provisions applicable at the time o....
An employee who retires on the last day of the month in which they attain superannuation acquires the status of pensioner only on the following day, thus affecting the applicability of pension rules.
Employees who were in service on the effective date of revised pay rules are entitled to the benefits regardless of their technical retirement status, as per the interpretation of applicable rules.
The statutory force of rules, impermissibility of creating two classes of pensioners, and the discriminatory nature of the classification were the central legal points established in the judgment.
It is a well settled principle of law that statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The rules made under....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits of pension to daily wagers should be calculated from the date of their initial appointments, as per the Government Resolution dat....
The reasonableness of the cut-off date for pension revision and the absence of unreasonableness in the respondent corporation's actions in fixing the cut-off date were the central legal points establ....
The court established that pension fixation must comply with the relevant Office Memorandums and rules, affirming that pension is a right and must be calculated based on the correct interpretation of....
The distinction between retired employees and employees in service in the context of notional pay fixation and pension revision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
