9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as given effect to from 05.06.1995, that is from the date on which Scheme was approved by the Cabinet/ Government. For the employees who retired from 05.06.1995, till the date of notification, i.e, 06.10.1995 and for the employees in service, an option was given either to opt for Pension Scheme, or to continue under the Contributory Provident Fund. Clause 5 of the Scheme, stipulates eligibility criteria to opt for Pension Scheme. 3. The respondent-Union, consisting of the employees who retired prior to 05.06.1995, approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application in OA (D) No. 237/1996, for grant of following reliefs: "i) That the cut off date for grant of pension to those employees who were in service of the Corporation as on June 5, 1995 be quashed and set aside; ii) That the applicants i.e. pre June 5, 1995 employees, may be held entitled for pension as the other similarly situated employees between June 5, 1995 to October 6, 1995 have been given the benefit as per Clause 5 of the said Scheme; iii) That the action of the respondents Corporation in denying pension to the applicants may be declared illegal, unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned judgment and Order dated 08.01.2009, the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition, by quashing the cut-off date, on the ground that no reasons were forthcoming from the appellant- Corporation, for picking up the cut-off date, i.e, 05.06.1995, for implementation of Pension Scheme. Further, High Court has declared that the Scheme which was notified on 06.10.1995, shall apply to the members of the respondent-Union and other similarly situated persons, with a condition that they will have to deposit the amount received by them under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, within a reasonable time. The High Court has set aside the Order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 19.06.2001, passed in OA (D) 237/1996. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the High Court, the Road Transport Corporation is before us, by way of this civil appeal. 8. We have heard Sri Himanshu Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation and Sri M.C. Dhingra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentapplicant. 9. It is contended by Sri Himanshu Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that, though there is no discrimination in fixing the cut-off date, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntious issue of fixation of cut-off date, for extending the benefit of Pension Scheme by the Corporation, we need to notice certain factual aspects emerging from the pleadings of the parties and other material on record. 13. The members of the respondent-Union were initially employed by the Mandi- Kullu Road Transport Corporation. By Order dated 24.09.1974, the said Corporation was re-named as "Himachal Road Transport Corporation" and vide notification dated 01.10.1974, the Himachal Pradesh State Government has taken over the services of such employees with effect from 02.10.1974. All the members of the respondent-Union, who were retired, were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, after their services were taken over by the Corporation with effect from 02.10.1974. The State Government has notified the Pension Scheme on 06.10.1995, however, the same was made applicable with effect from 05.06.1995. The Administrative Tribunal, by drawing a distinction on the facts from the case of D.S. Nakara [AIR 1983 SC 130 = (1983) 1 SCC 305] and other judgments relied on, on behalf of the respondent, has held that the point which arises in the instant case is different from the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of this case. 16. Though there are long line of cases, where validity of fixation of cut-off date is considered by this Court, we confine and refer to the case law which is relevant to the facts of the case on hand. In the case of State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal [(2005)6 SCC 754], while examining the validity of cut-off date fixed for grant of benefit of increased quantum of death-cum- retirement gratuity, this Court has held that the financial constraint pleaded by the Government, was a valid ground for fixation of cut-off date and such fixation was not arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. While differentiating the facts with the case of D.S. Nakara [AIR 1983 SC 130 = (1983) 1 SCC 305], this Court held in para 29 of the judgment, which reads as under: "29. D.S. Nakara [AIR 1983 SC 130 = (1983) 1 SCC 305] which is the mainstay of the case of the employees arose under special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classification of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits to employees retiring on or after the cut-off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on basis of cut-off date are impermissible unless such classification is founded on some rational principle. On the facts of the case, in the aforesaid judgment it is held that the Order which was issued by the Government of India on 21.11.1997, is applicable only to existing officers and not retirees. Further in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary v. The State of Manipur and others [(2019)9 Scale, 282], of which, one of us is a party, (Hon'ble M.R. Shah, J.), when validity of Office Memorandum dated 21.04.1999, issued for revising the quantum of pension by fixing the cut-off date on 01.01.1996 is questioned, this Court has held that all pensioners form only one homogeneous class and held that such a fixation of date for extending the benefits of revised benefits to the pensioners, is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. Coming back to the facts of the case on hand, by applying the case law which is referred above, it is clear that all the members of the respondent-Union, while in service, were governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. All those employees who retired before 05.06.1995, were paid all retiral benefits, applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer a judgment of this Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another v. Amrit Lal Gandhi and others [(1997) 2 SCC 342]. The ratio decided in the said case is identical to the issue on hand in the present case. In the aforesaid case, pursuant to recommendations made in the year 1986, by a committee appointed by University Grants Commission, the Syndicate and Senate of the University has recommended for introducing a Pension Scheme for the employees of the University. The State Government's approval was sought, which was given for introducing the Scheme with effect from 01.01.1990. When such fixation of cut-off date from 01.01.90 was found fault with, by the High Court and the High Court issued directions to give effect from 01.01.1986, while reversing the judgment of the High Court, this Court has held that fixation of cut-off date from 01.01.1990 cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. Relevant paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the judgment, read as under: "16. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the present case, we find no justification for the High Court having substituted the date of 1-1-1986 in lieu of 1-1-1990. It is evident that for introducing a pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
