W.P.(C) 4168/2021 Page 1 of 1

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 14^th February, 2022

Pronounced on: 17^th February, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 4168/2021

DR. SARAT KUMAR SAHOO

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Anukul

Chandra

Pradhan,

Sr.Advocate with Mr. Rahul Baid

and Mr.Ronak Baid, Advocates.

versus

CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR

GAIL INDIA LTD AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms.Purnima

Maheshwari

for

Respondent/ GAIL.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

YOGESH KHANNA, J. (Through Video Conferencing)

1.

This petition is filed by petitioner for directions against the

respondents to extend pension as promised in the letter of appointment,

under the Scheme of "Contributory Superannuation Benefit Fund" of

GAIL, although, terms and conditions as mentioned, in the Scheme have

been satisfied by the petitioner.

2.

One of the pre-condition of the Respondent’s Pension Scheme was

"the pension shall be payable on attaining the notional age of

superannuation, provided, the minimum eligibility period is continuous

15 years of service in GAIL with a rider that in case anyone, who has

served less than 15 years of service but prefers to get separated from

office he/she can contribute remaining period in one go for being eligible

for pension". The petitioner on completion of 14 years and one month of

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000616

W.P.(C) 4168/2021 Page 2 of 2

service, was asked by respondent to pay Rs.45,604/- for the shortfall

period for the purpose of availing pension under the old scheme and the

said amount was also accepted on being deposited by the petitioner.

However, the respondent company refused to process and pay pension to

the petitioner by taking recourse of revised/amended scheme, namely,

''Defined Contribution Fund, 2007" which was notified on 04.04.2014

which makes an employee entitled to pension only, if an employee has

put in job of minimum 15 years of continuous service, with no relaxation,

irrespective of the fact the said amended scheme was not applicable in

the petitioner's case as he got separated from GAIL prior to effective date

i.e. 01.01.2007. It is alleged, the old scheme of 2000 would govern the

case of petitioner, as he got separated from GAIL when the old scheme

was in force.

3.

It was argued by the respondent since the Trustees had a power to

revise the scheme, hence it was revised in the year 2007 and thereafter

only those persons who had completed 15 years of service, could avail

the benefit of pension. Regarding an employee Rajiv Khanna, it was

argued he was also wrongly paid the pension and ought not to have been

paid.

4.

The learned counsel for the respondent also referred to Vineeta

Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. MANU/SC/0582/2020 to say if

there is a change in law during the pendency of the case, the later law be

applied. The Court noted:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000616

W.P.(C) 4168/2021 Page 3 of 3

5.

Similarly the respondent referred to B.T.Manglani vs. Delhi

Development Authority and Anr. in W.P.(C)2286/2015 decided on

02.06.2016 and to P.Bandopadhya and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

MANU/SC/0378/2019 on this issue.

6.

She also referred to various annexures including an office

memorandum dated 26.11.2008 viz. Annexure-R1, which read as under:

returns from the schemes to be operated. The Pension and

Medical benefits can be extended to those executives, who

superannuate from the CPSE and have put in a minimum

of 15 years of serv1ce in the CPSE, pri