TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now give facts in brief to appreciate the common issue raised in these cases. 4. The appellant-Board was brought into existence on 1.7.1957 in accordance with Section 5 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The employees of the Electricity Department of the Govt. of Tamil Nadu were transferred to the appellant-Board on and from 1.7.1957 and the erstwhile employees of the Government became the employees of the Board. It is not in dispute that the employees (respondents), termed as workmen in Regular Work Charged Establishment, were governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme on the date when they were transferred from Electricity Department of Tamil Nadu to the appellant-Board. It is also not in dispute that on their retirement prior to 1.7.1986 all the employees (respondents), who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, had received all retiral benefits in full settlement. 5. After the formation of the appellant-Board, separate proceedings were issued in all matters connected with it by virtue of powers conferred under Section 79 of the Act including pension regulations after taking into account the financial commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the benefits giving a cut off date without any nexus to the policy of extending the pension scheme. In this connection we have already noticed that the regular workmen of the work charged establishment had been making representations, for extension of the scheme for more than ten years. The mere delay on the part of the Board in issuing the impugned proceedings and stating that from the date of the proceedings only the benefit will be extended to is in our opinion arbitrary and without any nexus to the policy of extension of the scheme. We are clearly inclined to agree with the Petitioners that the scheme should be extended to all regular work charged establishment personnel's retiring/expiring even before 1.7.1986. But, the actual benefits will be extended to only from the date of the proceedings viz., 26.6.1986. In this view of the matter, the writ appeals are allowed. Consequently the writ petitions will stand allowed. The order in the writ petitions shall not be interpreted to mean that the impugned Board's proceedings have been struck off, but on the other hand it shall mean that the benefit of pension shall be extended to all the regular work charged establishment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant date of the coming into operation of the new scheme would disentitle him from getting such a new benefit. 9. This Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Lieu (Mrs.) E. locals (1997)IILLJ830SC , to which one of us (Sujata V. Manohar J.) was a party, had considered a case similar to the one on hand and held as follows : The respondent, therefore, cannot claim the benefit of a scheme which came into operation from a date subsequent to the date of her retirement. The respondent also did not contend either before the High Court or in the grounds of appeal before us that a cut-off date for grant of pensioner benefits is arbitrary or unreasonable. Even otherwise in view of the fact that a study team was first appointed and pursuant to its report certain benefits were given after considering the report of the study group would show that the cut-off date had a logical nexus with the decision to grant these benefits on the basis of the report of the study team. Fresh financial benefits which are conferred also have to be based on proper estimates of financial outlay required. Bearing in mind all relevant factors, if such a benefit is conferred from a given date, such conferment of benefits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such, any revised scheme in respect of post-retirement benefits, if implemented with a cut-off date, which can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut-off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government. When the army personnel claimed the same pension irrespective of their date of retirement, this Court in the Constitution Bench case of the Indian Ex-services League v. Union of India considered the grievance of ex-servicemen who had laid the claim on the bases of Nakara but ultimately negatived the same and followed Krishena Kumar. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Assn. v. Union of India, when the validity of the introduction of Pension Scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was challenged on the ground that bank employees who retired prior to 1.1.1986 have not been gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As noticed earlier, the learned Judges even after noticing that the ratio in the judgment of this Court in Nakara's case (supra) cannot be pressed into service, erroneously granted relief on the alleged delay on the part of the appellant-Electricity Board in introducing the pension scheme which certainly cannot be a ground for the court to give retrospective effect to the pension scheme. Moreover, the appellant-Board had given well-founded reasons for introducing the pension scheme from 1.7.1986 including financial constraints, a valid ground. We are of the view that the retired employees (respondents), who had retired from service before 1.7.1986 and those who were in employment on the said date, cannot be treated alike as they do not belong to one class. The workmen, who had retired after receiving all the benefits available under the contributory Provident Fund Scheme, cease to be employees of the appellant-Board w.e.f. the date of their retirement. They form a separate class. 16. In the light of the foregoing discussion and applying the rulings of this Court above-noted, we answer the issue set out at the outset by holding that the appellant-Board has not acted illegally or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
