Allowed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,and Ors. v. Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Kar.Samiti and Anr.

Rajasthan HC25 Mar 2015SAW/1027/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two special appeals, the Division Bench addressed whether the Supreme Court's judgment in Manojbhai N. Shah precludes the enforcement of retired employees' claims for revised pension benefits under a voluntary retirement scheme, ultimately upholding the higher court's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeals allowed; impugned judgment set aside; writ petitions dismissed.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶3

J U D G M E N T

¶4

(1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.974/2013 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Karamchari Samiti & Anr.)

¶5

(2) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1027/2013 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Karamchari Samiti & Anr.)

¶6

Date of Judgment :: 25^th March, 2015

¶7

P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶8

Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the appellants. Mr. Anil Bhandari, for the respondents.

¶9

BY THE COURT :

¶10

Being founded on identical facts, learned Single Bench by judgment impugned dated 30.7.2013 disosed of two writ petitions i.e. S.B. Civil, Writ Petition Nos.1807/2006 and 1808/2006.

¶11

In the writ petitions the cause agitated by the retired employees/officers of the Insurance Companies was that they were employed with the appellant respondent Insurance Companies in the ministerial cadre or in the cadre of officers. In the year 2004, when they were in employment, two schemes i.e. General Insurance Employees' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 and General Insurance Officers' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 were introduced. By a notification dated 1.1.2004 the schemes were promulgated by the Government of India

¶12

-2-

¶13

exercising powers under Section 17-A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The purpose of the schemes was to grant voluntary retirement to the employees desirous for the same by extending them certain additional benefits referred as “other benefits” under clause (6) of both the schemes. The members of the respondent petitioner association availed voluntary retirement under the schemes aforesaid by accepting regular retiral benefits and “other benefits” referred above.

¶14

The appellant respondent by General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scale and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Amendment Scheme, 2005 revised pay scales and other ancillary monetary benefits for their employees and the revision was made effective from 1.8.2002. Revision of pay scales was also made for the persons who were in “officers cadre”. The revision of pay and other benefits were not extended to the persons who availed voluntary retirement under the schemes of 2004. The same was questioned by the respondent petitioner association by way of filing the writ petitions.

¶15

Learned Single Bench after adjudicating the issue in detail arrived at the conclusion that the denial to members of the respondent petitioner associations from the revised retiral benefits as a consequence to promulgation of revised pay scales scheme of 2005 is perse arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. Accordingly, while accepting the writ petitions the appellant respondents were directed to extend the benefit of revision of pay scale to

¶16

-3-

¶17

the members of the petitioner associations notionally w.e.f. 1.8.2002 and corresponding benefit of revised pension. A direction was also given to revise the benefit of gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension by extending benefits of revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.8.2002 to all members of the petitioner association by way of payment of arrears.

¶18

In appeal, at the threshold learned counsel for the appellants submits that the issue has already been adjudicated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Transfer Case (Civil) No.48/2010, Manojbhai N.Shah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 7.1.2015, and in view of that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent petitioner association submits that Hon'ble the Supreme Court though has decided the matter but has not taken into consideration several issues which are required to be addressed.

¶20

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶21

Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically refused to accept that the action of the employers in not giving pay rise to the employees in pursuance of the notification is discriminatory in nature. The Supreme Court also arrived at the conclusion that the employees retired under the scheme constitutes a separate class of employees and they cannot be treated at par with the employees retiring in normal course. The findings arrived by the Apex Court read as under:-

¶22

-4-

¶23

“38. We do not agree with the submission made on behalf of the employees that action of the Employers in not giving pay rise to the employees in pursuance of the Notification is discriminatory in nature. The employees who retired under the scheme from a separate class of employees who were given may benefits, which are not given to employees retiring in normal course. If they all form a separate class, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that all those who retired under the Scheme and those who retired in normal course, are similarly situated. Thus, in our opinion, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the instant case.

¶24

Similarly, there is no violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. True, that those who retired under the Scheme did the same work which was being done by those who retired in normal course, but one cannot forget the fact that those who retired under the Scheme got substantially higher retirement benefits. In the circumstances, we do not accept the submission also.

¶25

Some submission were made by the learned counsel for the employees regarding power of the Employers in relation to issuance of the Notification dated 21^st December, 2005. We are of the view that an Employer can fix salary for its employees and we do not agree with the submission that the Notification was not issued properly or legally.

¶26

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the employees who had opted for retirement under the Scheme would not be entitled to additional pension upon revision of pay effected under the Notification dated 21^st December, 2005.

¶27

-5-

¶28

All judgments directing the Employers to make additional payment of pension to the employees retiring under the Scheme are set aside and, accordingly, all the transferred cases are finally disposed of and Special Leave Petition (C) No.10903 of 2011 is dismissed.”

¶29

We are of considered opinion that being upheld by Hon'ble the Apex Court, it is not open for us to examine merits of the scheme on any point.

¶30

We are of considered opinion that the entire issue has already been threshed out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and, therefore, these appeals deserve to be disposed of in the terms of the law laid down by the highest Court.

¶31

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment impugned dated 30.7.2013 passed in SBCivil Writ Petition Nos.1807/2006 and 1808/2006 is set aside. The writ petitions are dismissed.

¶32

(JAISHREE THAKUR),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J.

¶33

Mathuria.KK/PS

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,and Ors. v. Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Kar.Samiti and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,and Ors. v. Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Kar.Samiti and Anr.

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

Union of India and Anr. Vs Surendra Gund

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Dr. O.P. Chandak

Dinu Khan Vs State and Ors.

Mohan Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,and Ors. Vs Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Kar.Samiti and Anr.

Principal Investigator and Co-Ordi.and Anr. Vs Chandra Prakash and Anr.