Allowed

S.Varadharajan, v. Airports Authority of India

Madras HC21 Jun 2023WP/10961/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge held that AIR pension scheme benefits covering previous CPWD service must be granted to petitioners who retired with a shortfall of a few months. Relief granted with effect from the date of petition filing to prevent antick. Respondents directed to deduct employee contribution and pay balance.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to extend pension benefits with effect from date of petition, deduct employee contribution with 6% interest, and pay the balance within six weeks.

S.Varadharajan, Vs Airports Authority of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10961 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.06.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.No.10961 of 2016

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.9554 of 2016

1.S.Varadharajan

2.S.Karnan

3.S.Ramakumar

4.A.Jayaveera Raghavan

¶13

... Petitioners

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.Airports Authority of India, Represented by The Chairman

¶16

(formerly International Airports Authority of India)

¶17

Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sadarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶18

2.The Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, (formerly International Airports Authority of India) Chennai International Airport, Chennai - 600 027.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/8

¶21

1/8

¶22

W.P.No.10961 of 2016

¶23

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the monthly pension to the petitioners from the date of superannuation on 30.06.2006, 30.06.2006, 30.06.2005 and 30.09.2006 respectively by counting the total years of regular service in International Airports Authority of India and pay the pension.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Singaravelan Senior Counsel for Ms.M.Srividhya For Respondents : Mrs.A.Arul Mary

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay monthly pension to the petitioners from their respective date of superannuation by counting total years of regular service with International Airports Authority of India and accordingly pay pension to them.

¶27

The case of the writ petitioners is that they were all selected for appointment to various posts in Central Public Works Department (CPWD) in the year 1968 and 1969 and subsequently, they were all sent on deputation to the International Airports Authority of India (IAAI). By an administrative order, they were also absorbed on 01.09.1977 and they retired from services in and around in 2005-2006.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8

¶29

2/8

¶30

W.P.No.10961 of 2016

¶31

The petitioners have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal

¶32

(CAT), Chennai, seeking pension for their services rendered in CPWD and they succeeded ultimately, in and by an order dated 04.10.2013 passed by this Court.

¶33

The petitioners have all retired from IAAI having put in close to 18 or

¶34

19 years of service. However, they have been denied pension even as per the Pension Scheme introduced by the respondents.

¶35

Having completed nearly ten years of service, the petitioners fall short

¶36

by only few months and therefore, it is their case that their services in CPWD may be taken into account, so that the pension can be awarded for the entire period of service.

¶37

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit admitting that the petitioners were absorbed as regular employees with effect from 01.09.1977. However, it is contended that the petitioners have received all the terminal benefits and the writ petition itself is belated, since the petitioners have all retired more than ten years back.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8

¶39

W.P.No.10961 of 2016

¶40

It is also contended that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge

¶41

the deputation to IAAI being without their consent, especially, when they were absorbed as regular employees of IAAI even in September 1977.

¶42

According to the respondents, Airports Authority of India (AAI) was formed by an Act of Parliament with effect from 01.04.1995 only. The petitioners' request to treat their services in CPWD cannot be entertained since the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS), 1995, is not a regular pension scheme.

¶43

It is also contended that the petitioners cannot be accommodated as admittedly there is a short-fall of nine months in respect of the first and second petitioners, one year nine months in respect of the third petitioner and four months in respect of the fourth petitioner.

¶44

The respondents have followed all the norms, terms and conditions of

¶45

the scheme and therefore, the respondents contending that there are no merits in the writ petition and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8

¶47

W.P.No.10961 of 2016

¶48

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶49

It is not in dispute that all the petitioners fall short by few months to become eligible for pension. As pointed out by the respondents in their counter affidavit, it is seen that excepting the third petitioner, the other three petitioners have missed the bus by just a few months.

¶50

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would invite the attention of this Court to an order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.14769 to 14773 of 2013 dated 04.10.2013. In almost identical circumstances, this Court following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs Tarsem Singh , 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 765, held that the petitioners therein were entitled to the benefits from the date of the application made since similarly placed employees were given the same benefits and the petitioners therein would not be treated differently. This Court passed a considered order giving appropriate directions calling upon/requiring the petitioners to refund the gratuity, which was already received with 9% simple interest per annum.

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8

¶52

W.P.No.10961 of 2016

¶53

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.4213 of 2006 dated 06.04.2009. The Division Bench of this Court has

¶54

already passed orders extending the benefits of the pension scheme to the similarly placed employees of AAI.

¶55

On this limited ground, the petitioners, who have approached this Court for similar relief cannot be denied the benefits. However, at the same time, this order should not open the floodgate of fresh applications being made by other retired employees.

¶56

Considering the fact that these petitioners have approached this Court in 2016 and all of them have missed the bus by few months, the respondents are directed to extend the benefits of the pension scheme to the petitioners with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition alone. This order shall not be cited as a precedent in order to open a flood gate of fresh claims.

¶57

It is also made clear that the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.4213 of 2006 dated 06.04.2009, shall be followed in the present case of the petitioners also.

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8

¶59

W.P.No.10961 of 2016

¶60

The learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that the petitioners are liable to pay their portion of contribution, together with interest.

¶61

The respondents shall therefore deduct the employees' contribution calculating the arrears payable together with interest at 6% per annum and after deducting the same, the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioners.

¶62

This exercise shall be carried out by the respondents, within a period

¶63

of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶64

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶65

Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶66

21.06.2023

¶67

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶68

arb

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8

W.P.No.10961 of 2016

P.B.BALAJI, J.

arb

1.The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, (formerly International Airports Authority of India) Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sadarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶75

2.The Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, (formerly International Airports Authority of India) Chennai International Airport, Chennai - 600 027.

¶76

W.P.No.10961 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.9554 of 2016

¶77

21.06.2023

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8

¶79

8/8

S.Varadharajan, v. Airports Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Varadharajan, v. Airports Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.shanmugam Vs The District Collector

R.Kanagaraj Vs The Joint Registrar of Coop.

S.Sundari, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

S.A. Vadivel, (Rtd Staff NO.TR0631) Vs Mr. Ponmudi

A. Periyanayagam (Rtd Staff NO.TR0704) Vs Ponmudi

Mrs.v.Vennila, Vs The Director