High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4511/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petition er seeks a direction to the respondents to apply the scheme of pension admissibl e to Government servants to the case of the petitioner or to frame such scheme o f pension in respect of the petitioner by taking into account the past services rendered by him under the Government of Assam.
Decision
2. At the time of filing the writ petition, petitioner was serving as Additional Chief of Research and Investigation in the Pollution Control Board , Assam and posted at Tezpur. 3. Petitioner served as a teacher in the Government Higher Secondar y School, Mangaldoi from 09-09-1973 to 29-02-1980, for more than 6 years. During this period, he also served on deputation in the Geography Department of Gauhat i University for more than one year. The service rendered by the petitioner in t he Higher Secondary School was a pensionable service. Following a regular selection process, petitioner was selected a 4. nd appointed as Cartographer in the Pollution Control Board, Assam, pursuant to which he joined on 29-02-1980. The post of Cartographer was subsequently re-desi gnated as Research Officer. He was finally promoted to the post of Additional Ch ief of Research and Investigation. In that capacity petitioner was also posted a s Member Secretary of the Pollution Control Board for a term of three years w.e. f. 06-04-1999. Pollution Control Board is constituted u/s 4 of the Water (Preve 5. ntion and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Chapter- VI of the Objectives and Mod el Organizational Structure of Boards for the Prevention and Control of Water Po llution provides for the structure of emoluments and service conditions of the o fficers and staff of the Pollution Control Board, who should be given option eit her to opt for pension or for Contributory Provident Fund. In case of Contributo ry Provident Fund, contribution should be 8.1/3 % of the pay of the employee. Pension Rules should be the ones applicable to Central Government servants or St ate Government servants as the case may be. 6. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 64 of the Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, State of Assam has framed a set of Rules called the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) (Assam) Rules, 1 977. Rule 24(2)(vi) provides for introduction of scheme of Contributory Providen t Fund and other schemes for the benefit of the employees of the Pollution Contr ol Board with the approval of the State Government of Assam. Petitioner contended that he would be retiring from the service 7. of the Pollution Control Board on attaining the age of superannuation on 01-11-2 007. Service under the Pollution Control Board has all the characteristics of se rvice under the State Government. After long years of service, petitioner is ent itled to the benefit of pension so that he does not face any insecurity in life after rendering such long service to the Pollution Control Board. Nothing was no tified about application of the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules , 1969 or any other scheme for payment of pension. However, deductions @ Rs. 3,3 03/- were deducted from the salary of the petitioner as his contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund to be paid on superannuation. Grievance of the petit ioner is that said amount was deducted from the salary without giving him any op portunity to exercise his option of availing Contributory Provident Fund or pens ion scheme under the Pension Rules. 8. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seekin g the relief as indicated above. 9. Respondent No.1 i.e. State of Assam in the Environment and Fores t Department has filed counter affidavit through its Commissioner and Secretary. Stand taken is that service rendered by the petitioner in the Pollution Control Board is not a service under the State Government of Assam and his service cann ot be equated with Government service. Posts under the Pollution Control Board i ncluding the post held by the petitioner are not pensionable. Pay of the officer s and staff of the Pollution Control Board are paid from local fund which does n ot qualify for pension as per Rules 31, 32 and 45 of the Assam Services (Pension ) Rules, 1969. Petitioner is not entitled to pension since his case is not cover ed by the provisions of the above Pension Rules. 10. d any affidavit. Respondent No.2 i.e. Pollution Control Board, Assam has not file 11. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner a nd Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. H. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board, Assam f or respondent No.2. Mr. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits th 12. at Government of Assam has got complete control over the affairs of the Pollutio n Control Board. In all its activities, it is guided by the State Government in all matters including raising the age of superannuation of its employees. Funds are provided by the State Government towards disbursement of pay and allowances of the employees of the Board. He has referred to a judgment of this Court rende red in the case of Paresh Ch. Baruah -Vs- State of Assam and Ors. reported in 20 07 (3) GLT 803 to contend that the Pollution Control Board is under the deep and pervasive control of the Government of Assam and it cannot act independently wi thout the concurrence or approval of the State Government. Since State Governmen t employees are getting pension, there is no reason to deny pension to the emplo yees of the Board, he submits. 13. The submission of Mr. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel for the pet itioner is opposed by learned State Counsel as well as by the learned Standing C ounsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board. They have referred to and reli ed upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 . 14. Submissions made have been considered. 15. While it is true that pension is not a bounty or an act of chari ty of the employer to be distributed to his employees at his own sweet will. It is an entitlement of the employee on the strength of service rendered by him. Bu t at the same time, it cannot also be overlooked that it is a statutory right go verned by the relevant provisions of the statute. 16. As already noticed above, as per Rule 24(2)(vi) of the Water (Pr evention and Control of Pollution) (Assam) Rules, 1977, the Pollution Control Bo ard has been given the discretion to introduce scheme of Contributory Provident Fund and other schemes for the benefit of its employees with the approval of the Government. Under Clause 6.03 of Chapter-VI of the Objectives and Model Organiz ational Structure of Boards for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution wh ich has been adopted by the Pollution Control Board, Assam, employees of the Boa rd have the option to opt for pension or for Contributory Provident Fund. 17. Petitioner has himself stated in paragraph-14 of the writ petiti on that monthly deductions were made @ Rs. 3,303/- from his salary as his contri bution towards Contributory Provident Fund. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that he had objected to such deduction or that he had so ught for a pension scheme to be made applicable in his case. This deduction was not a solitary deduction but a continuous one during the entire length of petiti oner’s service in the Pollution Control Board. Therefore, the conduct of the pet itioner is clearly indicative of the fact that he had accepted the scheme of Con tributory Provident Fund. 18. Coming to the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, Rule 31 ther eof provides that to quality for pension, the service of an officer must fulfill three conditions -- Firstly, the service must be under the Government, Secondly, the employment must be substantive and permanent, and Thirdly, the service must be paid by the Government. Obviously, the service of the petitioner was under the Pollution Control Board a nd not under the Government of Assam. Pollution Control Board is a statutory aut hority and a separate body, distinct from the State Government. Though it may re ceive Government grants or assistance, it cannot be said that its employees are paid by the Government. 19. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 20. No cost.