The present Civil Appeal arises out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4652 of 2018wherein the impugned Judgment and Order dated January 13,2016 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3149 OF 2019
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10663 of 2016]
P. Bandopadhya & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. …Respondents
JUDGMENT
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1.The present Civil Appeal arises out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4652 of 2018
wherein the impugned Judgment and Order dated January 13,
2016 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2704 of
2005 has been challenged.
2.The facts relevant for the present Civil Appeal, are briefly set out
below:
1
2.1.The Appellants were erstwhile employees in the Overseas
Communications Service [“OCS”], a Department of the
Government of India. On April 1, 1986 the OCS was converted
into a Government Company known as the Videsh Sanchar
Nigam Limited [“VSNL”]. Initially, all employees of the
erstwhile OCS were transferred en masse to Respondent No. 4
– VSNL (now known as Tata Communications Limited), where
they worked on deputation from April 1, 1986 to January 1,
1990.
2.2.On July 5, 1989 the Department of Pension and Pension
Welfare of the Government of India issued Office
Memorandum No. 4/18/87P & P.W. (D) [“ Office
Memorandum ”] specifying the terms and conditions
governing the pensionary benefits of employees who were
transferred en masse on the conversion of a Government
Department into a Central Public Sector Undertaking or
Autonomous Body.
The relevant extract of the Office Memorandum is set
out hereinbelow for ready reference:
2
“…The following terms and conditions will be applicable in
the case of en masse transfer of employees:
(a)The permanent Government servants shall have an
option to retain the pensionary benefit available to them
under the Government rules or be governed by the rules
of the Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body. This
option shall also be available to the quasi permanent and
temporary employees after they have been confirmed in
the Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body.
(b)The Government servants who opt to be governed by the
pensionary benefits available under the Government,
shall at the time of their retirement, be entitled to
pension, etc., in accordance with the Central Government
rules in force at that time.
(c)The permanent Government servants with less than 10
years’ service, quasi permanent employees and
temporary employees who opt for the rules of the Public
Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body shall be entitled to
an amount equal to Provident Fund contribution for the
period of their service under the Government up to the
date of permanent absorption in the PSU/Autonomous
Body with simple interest at 6% per annum as opening
balance in their CPF account with the Public Sector
Undertaking/Autonomous Body… ”
(emphasis supplied)
2.3.In pursuance of the Office Memorandum, Notice dated
December 11, 1989 was issued by Respondent No. 4 – VSNL
giving the erstwhile employees of OCS the option to either be
absorbed in the regular service of VSNL; or, be transferred to
the Surplus Staff Cell of the Central Government for
employment against possible vacancies available in other
Government offices.
3
The Appellants voluntarily exercised the option to be
absorbed into the regular service of VSNL with effect from
January 2, 1990.
2.4.Thereafter, a Staff Notice dated February 21, 1990 was issued
by Respondent No. 4 – VSNL to its employees, who were
earlier working in OCS. The employees were called upon to
exercise their option in terms of Clause (a) of the Office
Memorandum, i.e. either to retain the pensionary benefits
available under the Government of India at the time of
retirement as per the applicable Central Government rules in
force, or opt to be governed by the rules of Respondent No. 4 –
VSNL.
The format in which the option was to be indicated was
enclosed with the Staff Notice, along with a document titled
“Clarificatory Information to Facilitate Exercise of Option”. As
per paragraph I (1) (ii) of the clarificatory document, the
eligibility of employees who chose to retain pensionary
benefits under the Central Government was conditional on
putting in a minimum of ten years of qualifying service. The
4
relevant portion of Paragraph I (1) is reproduced hereinbelow
for ready reference:
“I. Exercise of option in favour of retention of pensionary
benefit under Central Government rules.
(1)This option is open to every employee whose services
have been transferred from Overseas Communications
Service to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited and who has
been permanently absorbed in the Videsh Sanchar Nigam
Ltd., irrespective of service rendered in the Overseas
Communications Service. Your eligibility for benefits under
the Pension Rules will however be conditional to :…
… (ii) Putting in a minimum of ten years of qualifying
service. (9 years 9 months and above will be reckoned
as 10 years)…”
(emphasis supplied)
2.5.The Appellants opted to retain pensionary benefits under the
rules of the Central Government by exercising their option in
pursuance of the Staff Notice dated February 21, 2009.
2.6.Respondent No. 4 – VSNL vide Letters dated May 22, 2003
and June 29, 2004, sought a clarification from Respondent
No. 3 – Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology, Department of Telecommunications [“DOT”] as to
whether the Appellants – P. Bandhopadhya, I.P. Singh and G.
Palaniappan could retain the pensionary benefits in spite of
having less than 10 years of service as on January 2, 1990.
5
2.7.In response, the DOT vide Letter dated October 13, 2004
requested VSNL to settle the cases of the Appellants in
accordance with Clause (b) of the Office Memorandum.
2.8.Accordingly, by Letter dated November 30, 2004, Respondent
No. 4 – VSNL informed Respondent No. 2 – Department of
Pension and Pension Welfare, Government of India to settle
the cases of the Appellants in accordance with Clause (b) of
the Office Memorandum.
2.9.In supersession of the Letter dated October 13, 2004, the
Department of Pension and Pension Welfare, Government of
India, vide Letter dated March 24, 2005 informed Respondent
No. 4 – VSNL that the payment of Pension to the Appellants
would be settled in terms of the Office Memorandum. This
was reconfirmed by Respondent No. 3 – DOT vide Letter
dated May 30, 2005.
2.10.Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 – Department of Pension and
Pension Welfare, Government of India informed the Appellants
that their pension would be settled in terms of the Office
Memorandum.
6
2.11.On June 27, 2005 the Appellants were informed by
Respondent No. 4 – VSNL that they would not be eligible to
receive Government Pension. They would, however, be eligible
to receive benefits under Clause (c) of the Office Memorandum
i.e. an amount equal to the Provident Fund contribution for
the period of their service under the Government up to the
date of permanent absorption in the Public Sector
Undertaking/Autonomous Body with 6% Simple Interest as
opening balance in their CPF account with the Public Sector
Undertaking/Autonomous Body.
2.12.Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellants made a
representation before the Respondents seeking for a
declaration that their cases be governed by Clause (b), and
not Clause (c) of the Office Memorandum.
2.13.The Appellants thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 2704 of 2005
before the Bombay High Court seeking the following prayers:
setting aside of Communication/Orders passed by the
Respondents on March 24, 2005, May 30, 2005 and
June 27, 2005;
7
directions to treat the cases of the Appellants as being
governed by Clause (b), and not Clause (c) of the Office
Memorandum.
In effect, the Appellants were seeking directions that
their cases be considered eligible for grant of pension by the
Government of India.
2.14.A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed Writ
Petition No. 2704 of 2005 on April 26, 2006 after holding that
the case of the Appellants was covered by an earlier decision
of a Division Bench in S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. [2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 691 : 2003 (4) Bom CR 79]. The
Judgment dated April 26, 2006 passed by the Division Bench
was challenged by the Appellants before this Court by way of
S.L.P. (C) No. 15862 of 2006, which was later renumbered as
Civil Appeal No. 3059 of 2007. This Court vide Order dated
July 14, 2011 set aside the Judgment dated April 26, 2006
passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
view of the submission by the Appellants that the decision in
S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2003 (2) Mh.L.J.
691 : 2003 (4) Bom CR 79] was not applicable to the facts of
8
their case. The matter was remanded to the High Court for
fresh consideration on merits.
2.15.After remand, the Bombay High Court reheard the matter,
and passed a detailed judgment dismissing Writ Petition No.
2704 of 2005, and held that the Appellants were not eligible
to avail pensionary benefits under the Government of India,
since they had served for less than 10 years on the date of
their absorption into VSNL.
The High Court held that on a cumulative reading of
Clauses (a), (b), and (c) of the Office Memorandum makes it
clear that only permanent Government servants who have
served for more than 10 years would have the option of
getting pensionary benefits after their absorption in Public
Sector Undertakings.
The case of the Appellants would be governed by Clause
(c) of the Office Memorandum which clearly carved out the
category of employees who had not completed 10 years of
service. It was held that a new category which is either
contrary to Clause (c), or renders the import of Clauses (a)
9
and (b) nugatory, cannot be created by way of judicial
interpretation.
The High Court held that the matter was squarely
covered by the earlier decision of a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors. [2003 (2) Mh. L.J. 691 : 2003 (4) Bom CR 79].
3.Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated January 13, 2016
passed by the Division Bench, the Appellants filed the present
Special Leave Petition. Applications for Impleadment have been filed
by 48 persons who claim to be similarly situated as the Appellants.
4.Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the
Appellants, and sought the setting aside of the impugned Judgment
and Order dated January 13, 2016 passed by the Division Bench.
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General,
appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 – 3, and Mr. Maninder
Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of Respondent
No. 4 – VSNL.
5.We have perused the record with the able assistance of the counsel
for the parties. The issue which arises for our consideration in the
10
present Civil Appeal is whether the Bombay High Court was
justified in holding that the case of the Appellants was covered by
the earlier decision in S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
[2003 (2) Mh. L.J. 691 : 2003 (4) Bom CR 79], and whether they are
entitled to receive pensionary benefits under the Central
Government.
6.SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS
6.1.Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate, submitted that the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had committed an
error by denying pensionary benefits to the Appellants.
6.2.It was submitted that Clause (b) of the Office Memorandum
would govern the case of the Appellants, since they had opted
to avail the pensionary benefits available under the Central
Government at the time of their retirement under Clause (a) of
the Office Memorandum.
6.3.It was further submitted that the Office Memorandum should
be interpreted in isolation on the basis of its plain text, and
the Form attached with the Staff Notice dated February 21,
1990 should not condition the said interpretation.
11
6.4.The Division Bench had erroneously interpreted the Office
Memorandum, since Clause (a) is the controlling provision,
and Clause (c) in no way dilutes what is provided by Clause
(a).
The Appellants challenged the interpretation of the
Office Memorandum given by a coordinate bench in S.V.
Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2003 (2) Mh. L.J.
691 : 2003 (4) Bom CR 79].
According to Mr. Mishra, Clauses (c) and (d) of the Office
Memorandum provides only the mode of payment of retiral
benefits with respect to two different categories of employees –
viz. employees with less than 10 years of qualifying service,
and employees with more than 10 years of qualifying service.
7.SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS
7.1.The counsel for the Respondents inter alia submitted that the
issue in the present case was squarely covered by the earlier
judgment of the Bombay High Court in S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. [2003 (2) Mh. L.J. 691 : 2003 (4) Bom
CR 79]. The Appellants through their Federation had
12
appeared in this case, and had not challenged this judgment
before this Court. As a consequence, this judgment attained
finality. It was therefore not open to the Appellants to re
litigate the same issue in the present Writ Petition. The
Division Bench rightly followed the said decision while
dismissing Writ Petition No. 2704 of 2005 by way of the
impugned Judgment and Order dated January 13, 2016.
7.2.It was submitted on behalf of VSNL that the Office
Memorandum categorises employees into two classes – first,
those who have completed 10 years of qualifying service; and
second, those who do not have 10 years of qualifying service.
Under the Office Memorandum, while the first class of
employees is entitled to pension under the Government of
India, the second class is entitled to a certain sum of
Provident Fund contribution.
7.3.The Appellants admittedly had less than 10 years of
qualifying service. They had voluntarily exercised their option
of getting absorbed in the regular service of VSNL. As a
consequence, this resulted in the severance of their previous
service with the Central Government, and they were deemed
13
to have retired from Government service on January 2, 1990
i.e. the date of their absorption with VSNL in accordance with
Rule 37(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
[“CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972].
The Appellants having taken a conscious decision to opt
for absorption in VSNL, knowing fully well that they had not
completed 10 years of qualifying service with the Central
Government, were not entitled to receive pensionary benefits
as per Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
7.4.It was submitted that the Office Memorandum was virtually in
conformity with Rule 49 r.w. Rule 37 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972. In any case, the Office Memorandum cannot be
interpreted in isolation, and has to be construed in
consonance with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The requirement of having completed a minimum
qualifying service of 10 years for entitlement to pensionary
benefits under Rule 49 of the CCS (Service) Rules, 1972
would apply to Clause (a) of the Office Memorandum.
14
The Appellants had admittedly less than the minimum
qualifying service of 10 years, and were deemed to have
retired from Government service, and were not entitled to
pensionary benefits under the Central Government. On
absorption with VSNL, they would not be entitled to pension.
8.DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
8.1.Rule 37 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides that a
Government servant who is absorbed in a Corporation or
Government Company is deemed to have retired from
government service on the date of his/her absorption.
The relevant extract of Rule 37 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“37. Pension on absorption in or under a corporation,
company or body
(1)A Government servant who has been permitted to be
absorbed in a service or post in or under a Corporation or
Company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by
the Central Government or a State Government or in or
under a Body controlled or financed by the Central
Government or a State Government, shall be deemed to
have retired from service from the date of such absorption
and subject to subrule (3) he shall be eligible to receive
retirement benefits if any, from such date as may be
determined, in accordance with the orders of the Central
Government applicable to him.
(2)…
15
(3)Where there is pension scheme in a body controlled or
financed by the Central Government in which a
Government servant is absorbed, he shall be entitled to
exercise option either to count the service rendered under
the Central Government in that body for pension or to
receive pro rata retirement benefits for the service
rendered under the Central Government in accordance
with the orders issued by the Central Government.
EXPLANATION.– Body means Autonomous Body or Statutory
Body.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Appellants having voluntarily exercised the option
to get absorbed in the regular service of VSNL, were deemed
to have retired from the service of the Central Government on
the date of their absorption i.e. January 2, 1990 as per Rule
37(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
8.2.It is the admitted position that the Appellants had not
completed 10 years of service on the date of their absorption
into VSNL, i.e. when they were deemed to have retired from
the service of the Central Government.
To receive pensionary benefits from the Government, a
Government servant is required to put in a minimum
‘qualifying service’ as defined by Rule 3(q) of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972. According to Rule 3(q), ‘qualifying
service’ means the service rendered while on duty or
16
otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose
of Pensions and Gratuities admissible under the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
8.3.Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides that a
Government servant is entitled to receive pension on
retirement only after the completion of the qualifying service
of 10 years.
1
On the other hand, a Government servant who
retires before completing the qualifying service of 10 years is
entitled to service gratuity under Rule 49(1) of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
The relevant extract of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
“49. Amount of Pension
(1)In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance
with the provisions of these rules before completing
qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service
gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month’s
emoluments for every completed six monthly period of
qualifying service.
(2)(a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in
accordance with the provisions of these rules after
completing qualifying service of not less than thirtythree
years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty
per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of
four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem.;
1 Union of India & Anr. v. Bashirbhai R. Khiliji, (2007) 6 SCC 16 : AIR 2007 SC
1935.
17
(b) I n the case of a Government servant retiring in
accordance with the provisions of these rules before
completing qualifying service of thirtythree years, but
after completing qualifying service of ten years, the
amount of pension admissible under Clause (a) and in no
case the amount of pension shall be less than Rupees
three hundred and seventyfive per mensem;…”
(emphasis supplied)
A conjoint reading of the statutory rules, i.e. Rule 37
with Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, would make it
abundantly clear that the Appellants were not entitled to
pensionary benefits since admittedly they did not have the
minimum qualifying service of 10 years, to make their service
pensionable with the Central Government. On absorption in
VSNL on January 2, 1990 there was a severance of their
service with the Central Government. The Appellants would
be entitled to the retiral benefits under VSNL.
After exercising the option to be absorbed in VSNL, the
Appellants are now estopped from seeking pensionary benefits
from the Central Government.
18
8.4.The Office Memorandum dated July 5, 1989 was issued by
the Department of Pension and Pension Welfare, Government
of India to settle the pensionary terms and conditions
applicable in cases of en masse transfer of employees on the
conversion of a Government Department into a Central Public
Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body.
(A)Clause (a) of the Office Memorandum provided an option
to Government servants (permanent, quasipermanent
and temporary) to either retain the pensionary benefits
available to them under the Government rules or be
governed by the rules of the Public Sector
Undertaking/Autonomous Body. Under Clause (b),
Government servants who opt to retain pensionary
benefits were entitled to receive pension at the time of
their retirement “in accordance with Central Government
rules in force at that time”.
(B)A conjoint reading of Clauses (a) and (b) would indicate
that the option of retaining pensionary benefits was
available only to those Government servants who were, in
the first place, entitled to receive pension at the time of
19
their retirement. This is evident from Clause (a) which
provides the option to “retain” pensionary benefits
available under the relevant Government rules. Clauses
(a) and (b) presuppose that the Government servants who
opt to retain pensionary benefits, should be entitled to
receive pensionary benefits under the Central Government
rules, in the first place.
(C)Rule 37 read with Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 indicates that the Appellants were not entitled to
receive Pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,
since they had not completed 10 years of qualifying
service. There was, therefore, no question of the
Appellants availing of the option of ‘retaining’ the benefits
under Clause (a).
(D)The Division Bench has rightly held that Clause (b) of the
Office Memorandum cannot be read in isolation, and is
required to be read in conjunction with Clause (a). The
entitlement to Pension under Clause (b) is qualified by the
phrase “in accordance with the Central Government rules
in force at that time”.
20
(E)Further, Paragraph I (1) (ii) of the document titled
“Clarificatory Information to Facilitate Exercise of Option”
clearly stated that the eligibility to retain pensionary
benefits under the Central Government was subject to the
condition of putting in a minimum of 10 years as
qualifying service.
The Appellants were specifically informed of this
clarification at the time of exercising their option that
their eligibility for pensionary benefits under the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 was dependant on their fulfilling the
minimum eligibility requirement of 10 years qualifying
service on the day their retirement.
8.5.We find great force in the submissions made by Mr. Maninder
Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for VSNL, and the learned
Additional Solicitor General, that the case is squarely covered
by the earlier decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court in S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
[2003 (2) Mh. L.J. 691 : 2003 (4) Bom CR 79].
8.6.It has been rightly contended that the earlier Writ Petition No.
5374 of 2002 was filed in a representative capacity. Petitioner
21
No. 3 in the said Writ Petition was the Federation of the VSNL
Employees Union, a collective body of VSNL employees. The
Federation was espousing the collective interest of the
Appellants, and other similarly situated persons before the
Division Bench. The prayers in Writ Petition No. 5374 of
2002, was recorded by the High Court in the following words:
“3. In the second petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 5374 of 2002,
a prayer is made for declaring that the action of the
respondents in not giving the petitioners and similarly
situated employees, who had not completed ten years of
service with the Government of India, the right to exercise
option for retaining Government pensionary benefits on their
absorption with VSNL is arbitrary, discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was,
therefore, prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the
Government of India that the Petitioners and similarly
situated employees, who had not completed ten years of
service on their date of absorption in VSNL, are entitled to
exercise option for retaining Government pensionary benefits
by counting their service in Government of India along with
their service with VSNL for such benefits.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petitions, and
held as follows:
“26. Regarding the contention that employees, who had not
completed ten years, were not allowed to exercise the option
with regard to pensionary benefits, it may be stated that
even when they were in the Government service, when VSNL
was a Government Company, they were not entitled to such
benefits. Reading the memorandum also, it becomes
abundantly clear that the persons, who had not completed
ten years of service with the Government, were not entitled to
22
pensionary benefits. The option, which was allowed by the
Government, and to be exercised by the employees, was in
respect of those employees who had completed ten years or
more of service and quasipermanent employees and
temporary employees, who would be entitled to such benefits
after they would be confirmed in the Public Sector or
Autonomous Bodies. Since the petitioners and similarly
situated persons, who had not completed ten years of
service, were not entitled to such benefits even under the
Government, they cannot make grievance for pensionary
benefits.”
(emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid findings of the Division Bench squarely
cover the present case of the Appellants.
8.7.The decision in S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
[2003 (2) Mh. L.J. 691 : 2003 (4) Bom CR 79] was not
challenged before the Supreme Court, and has since attained
finality. Therefore, the relief sought by the Appellants before
the High Court was barred by the principle of res judicata.
Reference can be made to the decision of the
Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2
wherein
Sharma, J., on behalf of the fivejudge bench, held:
“35…It is well established that the principles of res judicata
are applicable to writ petitions. The relief prayed for on
behalf of the petitioner in the present case is the same as he
2 (1990) 2 SCC 715 : AIR 1990 SC 1607.
23
would have, in the event of his success, obtained in the
earlier writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner in
reply contended that since the special leave petition before
this Court was dismissed in limine without giving any
reason, the order cannot be relied upon for a plea of res
judicata. The answer is that it is not the order of this Court
dismissing the special leave petition which is being relied
upon; the plea of res judicata has been pressed on the basis
of the High Court’s judgment which became final after the
dismissal of the special leave petition. In similar situation a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Daryao v. State of UP
3
held that where the High Court dismisses a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution after hearing the matter
on the merits, a subsequent petition in the Supreme Court
under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same reliefs
filed by the same parties will be barred by the general
principle of res judicata. The binding character of judgments
of courts of competent jurisdiction is in essence a part of the
rule of law on which the administration of justice, so much
emphasised by the Constitution, is founded and a judgment
of the High Court under Article 226 passed after a hearing on
the merits must bind the parties till set aside in appeal as
provided by the Constitution and cannot be permitted to be
circumvented by a petition under Article 32…”
(emphasis supplied)
Albeit the decision of the Constitution Bench was in the
context of a Writ Petition filed under Article 32, it would apply
with greater force to bar a Writ Petition filed under Article
226, like the one filed by the present Appellants, by the
operation of the principle of res judicata.
3 (1962) 1 SCR 574 : AIR 1961 SC 1457.
24
8.8.The Appellants were not entitled to receive pensionary
benefits either under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or under
Clauses (a) and (b) of the Office Memorandum.
The case of the Appellants being Government servants
prior to their absorption in VSNL, with less than 10 years of
qualifying service, would be squarely covered by Clause (c) of
the Office Memorandum. Under Clause (c), they would be
entitled to receive an amount equal to the Provident Fund
contribution for the period of their service under the
Government, upto the date of their permanent absorption
along with Simple Interest at 6% per annum as the opening
balance in their CPF account with the Public Sector
Undertaking/Autonomous Body.
9.In view of the aforesaid findings, the present Civil Appeal is
dismissed. The impugned Judgment and Order dated January 13,
2016 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2704 of
2005 is affirmed.
10.The Applications for Impleadment filed in the Appeal are disposed
of in terms of the present judgment. Any other pending I.A.s are
disposed of.
25
Ordered accordingly.
…..……...........................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
..….……..........................J.
(INDU MALHOTRA )
New Delhi
March 15, 2019.
26
Legal Notes
Add a Note....