Allowed

Smt M K Pavanakshi v. the Government of India

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2024WP/45349/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of communications denying dearness relief on family pensions. The Court directed the Ministry of Shipping and New Mangalore Port Trust to align pension regulations with Central Civil Services rules and extend dearness relief within four months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed. Impugned communications were quashed. A mandamus was issued to the Ministry of Shipping to rectify the denial and to the New Mangalore Port Trust to align regulations wi

Smt M K Pavanakshi Vs the Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.45349 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT. M K PAVANAKSHI W/O LATE GANGADHAR POOJARY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT 16, 1^ST AVENUE NMPT COLONY, PANAMBUR MANGALORE-575 010. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

¶9

2 . SMT. LETITIA CUTINHA W/O LATE SALAVADORE D"SOUZA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT PRASANNA HOUSE IDDYA VILLAGE SURATKAL-575 014. MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶10

3 . SRI. PRABHAKAR JOGI S/O LATE NARAYANA JOGI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 6 5^TH AVENUE, NMPT COLONY PANAMBUR MANGALORE-575 010.

¶11

¶12

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

¶13

4 . SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O LATE. DHRUVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS "LAXMI NIVAS", OPP DERABAIL CHURCH, KONCHADY, MANGALORE-575 008. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

¶14

5 . SMT. SUNDARI W/O LATE. RAMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.10, 3RD AVENUE NMPT COLONY, PANAMBUR MANGALORE-575 010. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

¶15

6 . NEW MANGALORE PORT PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION NORTH END, QUALITY CONTROL LAB PANAMBUR, MANGALORE-575 010 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K. SUBRAMANYA RAO ...PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. M. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (PORT’S WING) TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NO.1 PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶19

¶20

2 . THE NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST PANAMBUR, MANGALORE-575 010. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MADANAN PILLAI .R, CGC FOR R1; SRI. SUBRAMANYA .R, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION ALL DATED 12.04.2012 ADDRESSED BY THE R2 TO PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 6 SEPARATELY I.E., ANNX – A-1 TO A-6 AND ALSO COMMUNICATION DATED 12.07.2012 ADDRESSED BY R2 TO P6 I.E., ANNX-B AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the communications dated 12.04.2012 and 12.07.2012 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexures-A1 to A6 and Annexure-B respectively. A mandamus is also sought to direct respondents to pay dearness relief payable on the family pension of petitioner Nos.1 to 5 from the respective dates on which the dearness

¶27

¶28

relief family pension had been withdrawn or not paid to them on compassionate grounds.

¶29

The case revolves around denial of dearness

¶30

relief on pension to petitioner Nos.1 to 5, who are family pensioners of the New Mangalore Port Trust. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation and application of pension regulations vis-à-vis the entitlement to dearness relief, particularly in light of agreements and regulations aligning the New Mangalore Port Trust's policies with those of the Central Government.

¶31

The Court considered the relevant legal

¶32

precedents and agreements. These include the amendment to the Central Civil Services (Pensions) Rules in 1991, which extended the benefit of dearness relief on family pension to pensioners re-employed under Central or State Government entities or their Corporations. Additionally, the Court examined the wage settlements dated 2010, 2013, and

¶33

¶34

2018, wherein the New Mangalore Port Trust and Port Federations agreed to adopt pension regulations consistent with the Central Civil Services Pension Rules.

¶35

The petitioners contended that they were entitled to dearness relief on their pension by virtue of the aforementioned regulations and agreements. Conversely, the respondent, the New Mangalore Port Trust, argued that the decision to grant dearness relief vested with the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, and thus, they were not competent to make such decisions independently.

¶36

Analysis and Findings:

¶37

The case pertains to the denial of dearness relief on pension to petitioners who are family pensioners of the New Mangalore Port Trust i.e., respondent No.2. The documents presented indicate reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, and the New Mangalore Port Trust to extend the benefit of dearness

¶38

¶39

relief to re-employed pensioners and employed family pensioners.

¶40

The Court carefully analyzed the records,

¶41

including the relevant provisions, agreements, and legal precedents. It noted that the New Mangalore Port Trust had committed to adopting pension regulations consistent with the Central Civil Services Pension Rules through various agreements and recommendations. Furthermore, the delay in implementing these regulations underscored the urgency of addressing the petitioners' grievances.

¶42

The Court notes with concern the apparent lack of inclination on the part of the Ministry of Shipping and the New Mangalore Port Trust to resolve the issue of dearness relief. Despite calls for proposals and amendments to the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, there seems to be a reluctance to extend the benefit, citing financial burden.

¶43

¶44

While the Union of India has extended the

¶45

benefit of dearness relief to its employees through amendments to the pension rules, there remains clear inaction concerning employees of major ports. The Indian Ports Association and Federations, including respondent No.2, have resolved to incorporate the provisions of the Central Civil Service Rules relating to pension. However, the benefit of dearness relief on pension continues to be denied indefinitely.

¶46

In considering the additional documents and information provided, it becomes evident that the case at hand represents more than just a dispute over dearness relief on pension; it underscores broader issues of administrative responsiveness and adherence to agreements within the realm of pension regulations. The reluctance displayed by both the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, and the New Mangalore Port Trust in addressing the petitioners' concerns raises serious

¶47

¶48

questions about their commitment to resolving the matter in a timely and equitable manner. Despite calls for proposals and amendments to pension rules, there appears to be a persistent hesitance to extend the benefit of dearness relief, with financial considerations often cited as a primary deterrent. This inaction stands in stark contrast to the proactive measures taken by the Union of India in extending such benefits to its own employees through legislative amendments. The discrepancy between the actions of the Central Government and the inertia observed in the context of major port employees' pension entitlements is glaring and warrants close scrutiny. Moreover, the resolutions and agreements reached by bodies such as the Indian Ports Association and Federations, including respondent No.2, clearly indicate a collective acknowledgment of the need to align pension regulations with those of the Central Government. However, the failure to translate these resolutions into

¶49

¶50

tangible benefits for pensioners constitutes an unjustifiable denial of their rightful entitlements.

¶51

The chairman of respondent No.2 is party to the Memorandum of Settlement recorded before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and in terms of these three settlements, the respondent No.2 along with other similarly placed federations have resolved to adopt/update their pension regulations and where posts have not been so far framed therein, pension regulations in line with Central Government Rules have undertaken to frame the Rules within a period of six months.

¶52

Clause 41 of settlement dated 19.01.2010 reads as under:

¶53

“41. PENSION

¶54

41.1 Ports which are having their own Pension Regulations should update their Pension Regulations incorporating upto date amendments issued to CCS (Pension) Rules as advised by the Ministry within a period of six months. Similarly Ports which have not

¶55

¶56

so far framed their own Pension Regulations in line with Central Government Rules should do so within a period of six months.

¶57

41.2 Pension of all categories of employees will be consolidated as per the methodology enumerated in Appendix-IV. Benefits of Central Government orders extended to the Port employees are also indicated in the Appendix.”

¶58

Similar settlement is recorded on 25.10.2013.

¶59

The clause relevant to pension is at clause 40. The same reads as under:

¶60

“40. PENSION

¶61

40.1 Ports which are having their own Pension Regulations should update their Pension Regulations incorporating upto date amendments issued to CCS (Pension) Rules as advised by the Ministry within a period of six months. Similarly Ports which have not so far framed their own Pension Regulations in line with Central Government Rules should do so within a period of six months.

¶62

40.2 The demand of the Federations relating to consolidation of the pension/family pension consequent on the revision of pay and allowances with effect from 01.01.2012 will be analysed and put

¶63

¶64

forth by a Sub Committee of the BWNC and will be examined by the IPA in consultation with Ministry of Shipping and a decision will be taken within a reasonable time.”

¶65

Similar clause indicated in clause 39 in

¶66

settlement dated 30.08.2018, reads as under:

¶67

“39.0 PENSION

¶68

39.1 A Pension Regulations in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules shall be adopted by Major Ports within a period of 6 months.

¶69

39.2 Pension/Family Pension of all categories of employees shall be consolidated under two Formulations. The first Formulation of consolidation of pension of employees retired/died before 01.01.2012 is enumerated in Appendix-IV and the methodology of consolidation of pension of employees retired/died from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016 is enumerated in Appendix-V.

¶70

39.3 In the second formulation, the Pension/Family Pension of employees who retired/died prior to 01.01.2017 may be revised by notionally fixing their pay in the scales of pay as per

¶71

¶72

this Settlement in the level of Pay Matrix corresponding to the pay in the pay scale at which they retired/died. This will be done by notional pay fixation under each intervening Wage Settlements, based on the Formula for revision of pay. While fixing pay on notional basis, the pay fixation formulae as per Wage Settlements and other relevant instructions on the subject in force at the relevant time shall be strictly followed. 50% of the notional pay as on 01.01.2017 shall be the revised pension and 30% of this notional pay shall be the revised family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2017 as per this Formulation. In the case of family pensioners who were entitled to family pension at enhanced rate, the revised family pension shall be 50% of the notional pay as on 01.01.2017 and shall be payable till the period up to which family pension at enhanced rate is admissible as per Rules. The amount of revised pension/family pension so arrived at shall be rounded off to next higher Rupee. The higher of the two Formulations i. e. the revised pension/family pension as per Clause 39.2 or the revised pension/family pension as worked out in accordance with Clause 39.3 above, shall be granted to pre-2017 pensioners as revised pension/family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2017.

¶73

¶74

39.4 The Formulation given in Clause 39.3 would not be applicable for the purpose of revision of pension of those pensioners who were drawing Compulsory Retirement Pension under Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules or Compassionate Allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The pensioners in these categories would continue to be entitled to revised pension as per Clause 39.2.

¶75

39.5 Since the, consolidated pension will be inclusive of commuted portion of pension, if any, the commuted portion will be deducted from the said amount while making monthly disbursements. No arrears on account of revision of Pension/Family pension on notional fixation of pay will be admissible for the period prior to 1.1.2017. The arrears on account of revision of pension/family pension in terms of this Clause would be admissible with effect from 01.01.2017. As the notional fixation of pay in different Wage Settlements will take time, Ports shall pay arrears of revised pension as per Clause 39.2 and take expeditious action for notional fixation of pay and revision of pension. For calculation of arrears becoming due on the revision of pension/ family pension on the basis of Clause 39.3, the arrears of revised pension/family pension already

¶76

¶77

paid on revision of pension/family pension in accordance with Clause 39.2 shall be adjusted.”

¶78

In light of these observations, it is imperative for the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, and the New Mangalore Port Trust to promptly address the issue at hand and extend the benefit of dearness relief on pension to the petitioners and others similarly situated. Compliance with the Central Civil Service Pension Rules and the agreements entered into by relevant stakeholders must be ensured without further delay. Failure to take decisive action risks undermining the integrity of pension systems and perpetuating inequities among pensioners. As such, the Court emphasizes the urgent need for resolution and reiterates its commitment to upholding the rights of pensioners in accordance with the law and established agreements.

¶79

¶80

The reluctance exhibited by the Ministry of

¶81

Shipping, Government of India, and the New Mangalore Port Trust in addressing the petitioners' grievances underscores a broader systemic issue concerning the responsiveness of administrative bodies to the needs of pensioners. Despite repeated calls for proposals and amendments aimed at rectifying the denial of dearness relief, both entities have seemingly stalled on taking definitive action, citing financial concerns as a convenient rationale. This reticence is particularly troubling given the clear precedent set by the Union of India in extending similar benefits to its own employees through legislative amendments. The disparity between the swift action taken at the central level and the apparent inertia witnessed in addressing the concerns of major port employees raises serious questions about equity and accountability within the pension system.

¶82

¶83

Moreover, the resolutions and agreements forged by industry stakeholders, including the Indian Ports Association and Port Federations, signal a collective acknowledgment of the need to align pension regulations with those of the Central Government. These agreements reflect a consensus among relevant parties on the importance of ensuring parity and fairness in pension entitlements. However, the failure to translate these agreements into concrete action on the ground represents a significant breach of trust and undermines the integrity of the pension system.

¶84

In light of these considerations, the Court emphasizes the urgency of resolving the issue and extending the benefit of dearness relief to the petitioners and others similarly affected. The Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, and the New Mangalore Port Trust must demonstrate a genuine commitment to upholding the rights of pensioners by promptly implementing necessary

¶85

¶86

amendments or policies. Compliance with the Central Civil Service Pension Rules and the agreements entered into by industry stakeholders must be prioritized to ensure that pensioners receive the entitlements to which they are legally entitled.

¶87

Failure to address these concerns in a timely and equitable manner not only perpetuates injustices faced by pensioners but also erodes public trust in the pension system as a whole. The Court reiterates its steadfast commitment to safeguarding the rights of pensioners and expects all relevant parties to act with expediency and integrity in resolving this matter.

¶88

It is abundantly clear from the records that the petitioners are being subjected to unjust discrimination in the form of denied dearness relief on their pension. Despite being entitled to such benefits under agreements and resolutions aligning the New Mangalore Port Trust's pension

¶89

¶90

regulations with those of the Central Government, they have been consistently denied this entitlement. This denial is particularly egregious given the fact that pensioners under the Central Government have been extended the benefit of dearness relief through legislative amendments to the Central Civil Services Pension Rules.

¶91

The refusal to grant dearness relief to the petitioners, while extending the same benefit to pensioners under the Central Government, amounts to blatant discrimination. This disparate treatment based on the employer's status is not only unjust but also runs contrary to principles of equality and fairness enshrined in the Constitution. Pensioners, regardless of their employer, should be entitled to equal treatment and benefits under the law.

¶92

The Court reiterates that the entitlement to dearness relief on pension is a legitimate claim for

¶93

¶94

pensioners, particularly in light of agreements and resolutions to align pension regulations with those of the Central Government. The inaction and indefinite denial of this benefit by the respondents are unjustified and contrary to the principles of fairness and equality.

¶95

In light of the foregoing considerations and the principles of equity, fairness, and constitutional rights, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶96

ORDER

¶97

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶98

(ii) The impugned communications dated 12.04.2012 and 12.07.2012 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexures-A1 to A6 and Annexure-B respectively are hereby quashed;

¶99

(iii) A mandamus is issued to the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, to initiate immediate steps to rectify the denial of dearness relief to petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and ensure that they receive the entitled benefits without further delay;

¶100

¶101

(iv) The New Mangalore Port Trust shall align its pension regulations with the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, ensuring parity in pension entitlements with pensioners under the Central Government by implementing settlement agreement and the recommendation issued by the Indian Ports Association dated 29.11.2023; (v) The Indian Ports Association and port federations are hereby directed to expedite the implementation of the resolutions and agreements reached with industry stakeholders, thereby translating the consensus on pension regulations into actionable policies; (vi) This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶102

(vii) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶103

Sd/- JUDGE

¶104

Smt M K Pavanakshi v. the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M K Pavanakshi v. the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virupaksha J Abbigeri Vs the Principal Secretary

Manjegowda, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Moshanandam, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. C S Suresh Vs Union of India

Sri Siddesh B R Vs State of Karnataka

Dr H G Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka