Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Dr. Tomy Mampilly Kochuvareed – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Rep.by Secretary to Govt. of India, Delhi & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 15266 of 2022
Decided On : 01-08-2023
Writ Petition - Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, Pension and other retirement benefits - Central Government Rules, CCS Pension Rules 1972, CPF Scheme, Pension Scheme - The court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Respondents to pay Death cum Retirement Gratuity, Pension and other retirement benefits with all arrears and penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the next date of retirement within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The petitioner sought retirement benefits as per Central Government Rules, which were denied by the 3rd Respondent. The court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Respondents to pay the retirement benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to retirement benefits as per the Central Government Rules and the Office Memorandum, and that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's contention was not correct.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, Pension and other retirement benefits as per the Central Government Rules and the Office Memorandum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, being appointed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, was entitled to retirement benefits as per the Central Government Rules and the Office Memorandum, and that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's contention was not correct.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Respondents to pay Death cum Retirement Gratuity, Pension and other retirement benefits with all arrears and penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the next date of retirement within three months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders in No.7-1/2010-NI dated 28.07.2014 passed by the 3rd Respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to pay death cum retirement gratuity, pension and other retirement benefits as given to employees of the Institute for Physically Handicapped under the Ministry of Social Justice and Employment, Government of India with all arrears and penal interests of 18% with exemplary cost.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order of 3rd Respondent and to direct the Respondents to pay the petitioner Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, Pension and other retirement benefits as given to employees of Institute for Physically Handicapped with all arrears and penal interest.
2. (a) It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the Ministry of Social Welfare Government of India (now called the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment ) issued an Advertisement dated 28.11.1984 for various post including direct recruitment of 4 vacancies in the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation with pay scale of Rs.1100-00-1800-00. It is also stated that the post will carry Central Government pay scales and allowances. Selection Committee for recruitment was approved by the Secretary chaired by the Joint Secretary.
2. (b) The Petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee for recruitment approved by the Secretary chaired by the Joint Secretary and appointed on 01.03.1985 as Assistant Professor in Physial Medicine and Rehabilitation, a medical doctor and posted in the Regional and Rehabilitation Training Centre (RRTC) at Mumbai of the District Rehanbilitation Centre (DRC), Scheme of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Ministry of Social and Women''s Welfare then), Government of India and along with the Petitioner, one Mrs. Nirmala Venkateswaran, Mr.P.S.Srinivasan and Mr.Ghahshyam Das Bishnoi (G.D.Bishnoi) were appointed. In the Appointment Order it is clearly stated that the Central Government Rules and Regulations, besides Pay and Allowances, would be applicable to the Petitioner and services will be governed by the order of the Government of India since all the posting order are issued with the approval of Ministry.
2. (c) Petitioner was asked to subscribe CPF (Government of India – 1962), as were then employees of IPH. The Department of Pension and Pensioner''s Welfare, Government of India vide O.M.No.4/1/87-P.I.C.I dated 01.05.1987 gave an option to Central Government Civilian Employees subscription to the CPF (Government of India – 1962) to continue in CPF. If they did not exercise this option, they would be deemed to have come over to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme (CCS Pension 1972). In 2004 the Petitioner was deputed to North East to initiate the NE – Regional Centre of NIOH in Aizwal, Mizoram. Thereafter, he was redeployed with the approval of the Secretary to NIEPMD.
2. (d) Hence it is the contention that one Ms. Nirmala Venkateswaran from RRTC Chennai was directly recruited along with the Petitioner, who superannuated on 30.09.1999 to whom the CPF amount was returned like the Petitioner and denied Gratuity and Pension filed W.P.No.21935 of 2002 which was allowed by this Court on 15.11.2006 and the same has been upheld by this Court in W.A.No.1108 of 2007 dated 21.01.2008 and confirmed by the Apex Court in S.L.P(C) No.19803 of 2008 dated 22.08.2008. The Petitioner made a detailed representation dated 07.06.2011 detailing the earlier representation to grant the benefit extended to Mrs. Nirmala Venkateswaran as per the CCS Pension Rules 1972. The Petitioner was retired on 31.03.2014 and was paid only encashsment of Earned Leave on superannuation and the accumulated amount in NPS account, both employees and employer''s contribution. After the retirement of the Petitioner the 3rd R
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees appointed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment are entitled to retirement benefits as per the Central Government Rules ....
Employees of an autonomous body functioning as an instrumentality of the State are entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme upon its merger into a government institute, as the denial of such....
Pension is a right and not a bounty; delay in opting for pension benefits due to ignorance or miscommunication does not bar entitlement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the option to change the pension scheme should be exercised within the specified time frame, and the decision of the university to reject the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to be governed by a pension scheme is determined by the date of commencement of the recruitment process, and delay in appointment du....
The court established that once an employee opts for the CPF scheme, that choice is irrevocable, barring any future claims for pension benefits under the Pension Scheme.
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
