WP(C) Nos. 4599/1995 & 8789/2007

Page 1 of 19

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 29^th August, 2012

Decided on: 20^th December, 2012

+

W.P.(C) 4599/1995

SK GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj and Mr. Romil

Pathak, Advocates

versus

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anjana

Gosain, Advocate.

AND

+

W.P.(C) 8789/2007

SANJIVE CHAMOLI & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

versus

UOI & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms.

Anjana

Gosain,

Advocate

for

Respondent No. 1.

Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anjana

Gosain, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Coram:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as the

Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents in not

implementing the Office Memorandum dated 5^th July, 1989 (in short „the

OM‟) and granting them pensionary benefits in terms thereof.

2012:DHC:7594

WP(C) Nos. 4599/1995 & 8789/2007

Page 2 of 19

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in terms of this Office

Memorandum the Petitioners were entitled to be given an option to retain the

pensionary benefits available to them under the Govt. Rules or be governed

by the rules of the Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body, that is,

avail the Provident Fund Contribution Scheme or the Pension Scheme. In

view of the inaction of the Respondents in not offering the options, the

Petitioners made representations which were rejected vide letters dated 14^th

August, 1995 and 23^rd August, 1995 Annexures P-8 and P-9 in Writ Petition

(C) No. 4599 of 1995 and vide impugned letter dated 3^rd October, 2007

Annexure P-11 in WP(C) No. 8789/2007 the Employees Provident Fund

Scheme was extended to the Petitioners w.e.f. 1^st April, 1995. The

Petitioners seek a direction to the Respondents to give the Petitioners an

option to either choose the government pension rules or the rules, if any,

framed by the Airport Authority of India or the Contributory Provident Fund

Regulations of the Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4599

of 1995 contends that the right to retain the government pensionary benefits

asenvisaged under Clause (a) of the OM was meant to protect the

pensionable service rendered under the Government. The Office

Memorandum did not prescribe a pre-condition of completing ten years on

the date of absorption. Such a condition divides a homogenous class and

defeats the very object of clause (a) of the OM. The date of absorption has

no nexus with retaining pensionary benefits as pension is payable on

combined service rendered under the Government and the PSU. Section 18

of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 (in short „AAI Act‟) provided for

the constitution of two divisions namely International Airports Division and

2012:DHC:7594

WP(C) Nos. 4599/1995 & 8789/2007

Page 3 of 19

National Airports Division. However their service conditions remain the

same as applicable to them before the formation of the Airports Authority of

India. The Respondents were required to frame service regulations within

one year, further extendable to another one year of the Petitioners becoming

members of the National Airports Division. However, till date no rules and

regulations have been framed by the Respondents as per the Clause „b‟ read

with sub-section 4 of the Section 42 of the AAI Act, 1994. Thus even today

the Petitioners are governed by the rules and regulations applicable to the

employees of the Government of India. The request of the Petitioners

regarding the option being rejected by the Respondentson the ground that

they had not completed ten years of service is illegal a