Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
P. Balasubramaniam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Rep. by its Secretary-Food – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 35827, 35828, 35829, 35830, 35831, 35832, 35833, 35834, 35835, 35836, 35837, 35838, 35839, 35840, 35841, 35842, 35843, 35844, 35845, 35846, 35847, 35848, 35849, 35850, 35851, 35852, 35853, 35854, 35855, 35856, 36634, 36635, 36636, 36637, 36638, 36639, 36640, 36641, 36642, 36643, 36644, 36645, 36646, 36647, 36648, 36649, 36650, 37542, 37543, 37544, 37545, 37546, 37547, 39218, 39219, 39220, 39221, 39222, 39223, 39224, 39225, 39227, 39228, 39229 of 2015, Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 01-10-2018
Arun Anbumani, G. Rajagopal, J. Madanagopal Rao, K. Raju, K. Srinivasamurthy, D. Simon.
The final option exercised by the employees for terminal benefits under Section 12-A(4)(b) was binding, and the action to revise and reduce the benefits was held to be arbitrary and unjustified.
Headnote:
PENSIONARY BENEFITS - Government Employees - Sections 12-A(1), (2), (4) and (4-C) - The judgment discusses the application of Sections 12-A(1), (2), (4) and (4-C) in the context of transfer of government employees to the Food Corporation of India and their entitlement to pensionary benefits. The court emphasizes the employees' right to opt for terminal benefits as per the Central Government scheme and the binding nature of their final option on the Corporation and the Government of India. The court also highlights the principles of natural justice and the arbitrary nature of revising and reducing the retiral benefits payable to the employees.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, initially appointed by the Government of India and subsequently transferred to the Food Corporation of India, sought pensionary benefits as per the Central Government scheme, which had not been extended to them. They had exercised their option for Central Government benefits at the time of transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employees were entitled to the terminal benefits admissible to Central Government employees based on their final option under Section 12-A(4)(b). The court also emphasized the violation of the rules of natural justice in revising the retiral benefits and concluded that the action taken by the Corporation to revise and reduce the benefits was arbitrary and unjustified.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the employees to pensionary benefits as per the Central Government scheme, the compliance with the principles of natural justice, and the delay in approaching the authorities for the benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The employees' final option for terminal benefits as per the Central Government scheme under Section 12-A(4)(b) was binding on the Corporation and the Government of India. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the principles of natural justice and held that the action to revise and reduce the benefits was arbitrary and unjustified.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to revise the Central Dearness Allowance as per the Rules in force for all the petitioners, pay interest on arrears from a specified date, and calculate the differences in arrears to be paid within a specified period. The writ petitions were allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
1. The facts in nutshell to be considered in these batch of writ petitions are that all these writ petitioners were initially appointed by the Government of India and subsequently, on formation of the Corporation viz. Food Corporation of India, the petitioners had exercised their option and accordingly transferred to Food Corporation of India. The service conditions as applicable to the employees of the Food Corporation of India were made applicable to all these writ petitioners.
2. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the pensionary benefits as applicable to them at the time of exercising option had not been extended. Thus, the writ petitioners are constrained to move these batch of writ petitions.
3. Pertinently, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India on the very same subject in the case of Union of India and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 405 stated that the respondents before the Supreme Court of India were colleagues of the writ petitioners working in the same Food Corporation of India and they have filed writ petitions with reference to the conditions stipulated at the time of exercising option and the writ petitions were initially allowed by the Kerala High Court, against which, the Union of India preferred an appeal before the Apex Court and the same was decided on 10.02.2010.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the Clauses and the Rules which are all relevant for the purpose of deciding the present writ petitions.
5. Paragraph No. 5 of the judgment reads as follows:
5. For the sake of convenient reference, Sections 12-A(1), (2), (4) and (4-C) are reproduced below:
"12-A. Special provisions for transfer of government employees to the Corporation in certain cases:-
(1) Where the Central Government has ceased or ceases to perform any functions which under Section 13 are functions of the Corporation, it shall be lawful for the Central Government to transfer, by order and with effect from such date or dates (which, may be either retrospective to any date not earlier than 1-1-1965, or prospective) as may be specified in the order, to the Corporation any of the officers or employees serving in the Department of the Central Government dealing with food or any of its subordinate or attached offices and engaged in the performance of those functions:
Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be made in relation to any officer or employee in such Department or office who has, in respect of the proposal of the Central Government to transfer such officer or employee to the Corporation, intimated within such time as may be specified in this behalf by that Government, his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation.
(2) In making an order under sub-section (1), the Central Government shall, as far as may be, take into consideration the functions which the Central Government has ceased or ceases to perform and the areas in which such functions have been or are performed.
***
(4) Every officer or other employee transferred by an order made under sub-section (1) shall, within six months from the date of transfer, exercise his option in writing to be governed:-
(a) by the scale of pay applicable to the post held by him under the Government immediately before the date of transfer or by the scale of pay applicable to the post under the Corporation to which he is transferred.
(b) by the leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to employees of the Central Government in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government as amended from time to time or the leave, provident fund or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Corporation under the regulations made by the Corporation under this Act and such option once exercised shall be final:
Provided that the option exercised under clause (a) shall be applicable only in respect of the post to which such officer or employee is transferr
