2009 Supreme(SC) 1819

2009(8) Supreme 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran and K S Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
M. K. Sarkar — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8151 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP [C] No.15031 of 2006]
Decided on : 08-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
When a scheme extending the benefit of option for switchover, stipulates that the benefit will be available only to those who exercise option within a specified time, the option should obviously be exercised within such time.
2. Guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner; and that if any illegality or irregularity is committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction on courts for perpetuating the same irregularity or illegality in their favour also, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegaly extended to others.

Headnote:Service Law – Respondent employed in Railway service was a subscriber to Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – Railways introduced pension scheme wherein Railway Board’s employees who were in service as on 1.4.1957 and those who joined between 1.4.1957 and 16.11.1957 were given an option to switch over to pension scheme instead of continuing under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – Respondent though aware of the introduction of the pension scheme and the options given on eight occasions between the years 1957 to 1974, consciously did not opt for the pension scheme and continued with the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – More than 22 years after his retirement, and after receiving his dues under the Provident Fund Scheme, respondent made a representation, requesting that he may be extended benefit of the pension scheme – Whether the respondent was entitled to exercise an option to switch over pension scheme, beyond the stipulated last date, that too twenty two years after retirement and receipt of the retirement dues under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. – Held when a scheme extending the benefit of option for switchover, stipulates that the benefit will be available only to those who exercise option within a specified time, the option should obviously be exercised within such time- The option scheme made it clear that no option could be exercised after the last date. In this case, the respondent chose not to exercise the option and continued to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, and more important, received the entire PF amount on his retirement – The fact that the respondent was the head of his department and all communications relating to the offer of Eighth Option and the several communications extending the validity period for exercising the option for pension scheme, were sent to the heads of departments for being circulated to all eligible employees/retired employees, was not in dispute –Therefore, the respondent who himself was the head of his department could not feign ignorance of the Eighth Option or the extensions of the validity period of the Eighth Option- Having enjoyed the benefits and income from the provident fund amount for more than 22 years, the respondent could not seek switch over to pension scheme which would result in respondent getting in addition to the PF amount already received, a large amount as arrears of pension for 22 years and also monthly pension for the rest of his life – If his request for such belated exercise of option was accepted, effect would be to permit the respondent to secure the double benefit of both provident fund scheme as also pension scheme, which was unjust and impermissible – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside and the original application of the respondent before tribunal dismissed – Appeal allowed. (Paras 7, 8, 1, 14)

        Belated representation in regard to a ‘stale’ or ‘dead’issue/-Principles for consideration of – When a belated representation in regard to a ‘stale’ or ‘dead’ issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the ‘dead’issue or time – barred dispute – The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction – Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase delay and laches – A Court or Tribunal, before directing ‘consideration’ of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a ‘live’ issue or whether it is with reference to a ‘dead’ or ‘stale’ issue- If it is with reference to a ‘dead’ or ‘state’ issue or dispute, the court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration – If the court or Tribunal deciding to direct ‘consideration’ without itself examining of merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches – Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legalposition and effect (Para 9)

        Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14 – Scope and ambit of-Guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner; and that if any illegality or irregularity is committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction on courts for perpetuating the same irregularity or illegality in their favour also, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegaly extended to others- A claim on the basis of guarantee of equality, by reference to someone similarly placed, is permissible only when person similarly placed has been lawfully granted a relief and the person claiming relief is also lawfully entitled for the same – On the other hand, where a benefit was illegally or irregularly extended to someone else, a person who is not extended a similar illegal benefit cannot approach a court for extension of a similar illegal benefit – If such a request is accepted, it would amount to perpetuating the irregularity– When a person is refused a benefit to which he is not entitled, he cannot approach court and claim that benefit on the ground that someone else has been illegally extended such benefit – If he wants, he can challenge the benefit illegally granted to others- The fact that someone who may be not entitled to the relief has been given relief illegally is not a ground to grant relief to a person who is not entitled to the relief (Para 13) 1995 (1) SCC 745; 1996 (2) SCC 459;1997 (7) SCC 752; 1997 (3)SCC 321, 2000 (9) SCC 94 , 2003 (5) SCC 437,relied upon

       Facts of the Case :

        Issue in consideration in present case was whether the respondent was entitled to exercise an option to switch over pension scheme, beyond the stipulated last date, that too twenty two years after retirement and receipt of the retirement dues under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held when a scheme extending the benefit of option for switchover, stipulates that the benefit will be available only to those who exercise option within a specified time, the option should obviously be exercised within such time. The option scheme made it clear that no option could be exercised after the last date. In this case, the respondent chose not to exercise the option and continued to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, and more important, received the entire PF amount on his retirement. The fact that the respondent was the head of his department and all communications relating to the offer of Eighth Option and the several communications extending the validity period for exercising the option for pension scheme, were sent to the heads of departments for being circulated to all eligible employees/retired employees, was not in dispute. Therefore, the respondent who himself was the head of his department could not feign ignorance of the Eighth Option or the extensions of the validity period of the Eighth Option. Having enjoyed the benefits and income from the provident fund amount for more than 22 years, the respondent could not seek switch over to pension scheme which would result in respondent getting in addition to the PF amount already received, a large amount as arrears of pension for 22 years and also monthly pension for the rest of his life. If his request for such belated exercise of option was accepted, effect would be to permit the respondent to secure the double benefit of both provident fund scheme as also pension scheme, which was unjust and impermissible. Orders of Tribunal and High Court were set aside and the original application of the respondent before was tribunal dismissed. Appeal allowed.