Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Rajasthan Pradushan Niyantran Mandal Karmchari Sangh (Rajasthan Pollution Control Board Employees Association) – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board through its Chairman
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4105 of 2006, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10139 of 2007, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9221 of 2006, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2662 of 2007, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8488 of 2007, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9838 of 2007, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6850 of 2016
Decided on : 04-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Mathur, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sarah Sharma Mr. Navin Chandra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Ashish Joshi, Adv. Ms. Mamta, Adv. Mr. Jai Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anjum Praveen, Adv. Ms. Sejal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Lamour, Adv.
For the Respondent:Major RP Singh, (Sr. Advocate) AAG with Mr. Jai Vardhan Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Dadhich, Adv. Mr. Akhil Simlote, Adv.
Point of Law : Employees of WALMI, which is an independent autonomous body registered under the Societies Act are not entitled to the pensionary benefits.
Headnote:
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 12(3A) – Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 – Employment and Service matter - Pension Scheme -Petitioner Association sent a notice for demand of justice to respondents and requested them for taking requisite steps for constituting the Pension Fund by transferring amount lying in Provident Fund and pass necessary orders - Board sent its reply to petitioner that this matter of Pension Regulations, 1994 is sub-judice before this Court - - Whether to extend pensionary benefits or not - Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to expert body and undertakings and Court cannot interfere lightly - As per counsel for petitioner, the Board is an autonomous body having its own funds to bear burden of payment of Pension to its employees - Counsel submitted that Deputy Director, Department of Environment had no authority to take a decision. Para 26
Finding of Court :
Seeds of right to receive pension, emerge from very day an employee enters a pensionable service - Here in this case, there is was no provision of grant of pension for employees of Board when they entered into Board’s services. Hence, they have no right to claim benefit of pension as a fundamental right - So, unless or until any fundamental right of petitioners has been violated, they cannot be allowed to challenge the action or policy decision of State/Respondent for not granting pensionary benefits to petitioner/ employees - Whether any financial benefit should be granted to employees or not, it should be left open for expert body of the government authority to decide and court should not interfere with such policy/administrative decisions - Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences - In view of above discussion and for reasons stated above, court finds no ground to interfere in administrative decision taken by the State/Respondent for not implementing Pension Regulation Scheme upon employees of Board.
Result : Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT ;
All these writ petitions in the bunch of cases, are involving identical questions of law and are based on same set of facts. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels, the matters are taken up for final disposal. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10139/2007 is taken up as the lead case, for deciding all these connected petitions.
(1) The issues involved in these petitions are :
(i) Whether Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees Pension Regulations, 1994 (for short “the Regulations 1994”) can be given effect without its publication in the Official Gazette?
(ii) Whether the court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications?
(2) Before answering the above issues, it is necessary to quote the prayer made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10139/2007, which reads as under :- “It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent-Board may be directed to produce the entire record related to pension scheme for the employees of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. After perusal of the complete record, pleadings and submissions, a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued in the following nature :-
“(i) That a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents that the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Pension Regulations of 1994 may be given effect to since 27/9/1994.
(ii) That the respondents may be directed to implement the pension scheme for the employees of the Board and to give them benefit of the pension scheme w.e.f. the date it came into existence.
(iii) That a direction may be issued that the guidelines of the State Government in the letter dated 17/12/1994 is not applicable in the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.
(iv) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioners.””
(3) Brief facts of the case are that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12(3A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short “the Act 1974”), the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (for short “the Board”) made Pension Regulations 1994 for benefit of Pension and General Provident Fund (for short “GPF”) of its employees and send the same for its approval from the State. Thereafter, the Additional Secretary, Department of Environment, Government of Rajasthan granted its approval to these Regulations, 1994 vide letter dated 27.09.1994 and directed the Board to get these Regulations published in Official Gazette at its own level.
(4) When the Regulations, 1994 were not published in the Official Gazette, some correspondence were done between the departments, and on 06.04.1999 the Secretary Department of State Enterprises wrote a letter directing Chief Executives of all State Public Enterprises that the guidelines issued vide Office Circular letter No. F.2(4)BPE/89/2628 dated 22.08.1989 and 17.12.1994 regarding Introduction of Pension Scheme for the employees of public enterprises in lieu of CPF benefits, stands withdrawn with immediate effect.
(5) On 25.08.2006, the petitioner Association sent a notice for demand of justice to the respondents and requested them for taking the requisite steps for constituting the Pension Fund by transferring the amount lying in the Provident Fund and pass necessary orders. The Board sent its reply to the petitioner that this matter of Pension Regulations, 1994 is subjudice before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4105/2006 titled as Narayan Lal Sharma v. R.S.P.C.B., and other petitions.
(6) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioners have approached this court for redressal of their grievances and for giving effect to the Pension Regulations, 1994 w.e.f. 27.09.1994 and for giving benefits of the pension scheme to the employees of the Board.
(7) Leaned senior counsel for the petitioners Mr. R.N. Mathur, submitted that when once approval was given by the State to the Pension Regulations
