The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 168 of 2021 with W. P. (S) No. 182 of 2021 with W. P. (S) No. 225 of 2021 with W. P. (S) No. 226 of 2021 --- Niranjan Poddar Anil Ekka Sushil Kumar Saha Bharigunath Mistry … … in W. P. (S) No. 168 of 2021) Petitioner … … in W. P. (S) No. 182 of 2021) Petitioner … … in W. P. (S) No. 225 of 2021) Petitioner … … Petitioner in W. P. (S) No. 226 of 2021) Versus 1. Mecon Ltd. (a Govt. of India Enterprises) through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Doranda, Ranchi 2. The General Manager (Personnel & Accounts), Mecon Ltd., Doranda, Ranchi 3. The Deputy General Manager-in-Charge (Personnel), Mecon Ltd., Doranda, Ranchi 4. Ministry of Steel through its Secretary, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi … … Respondents (in all the cases) --- CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Amitabh, Advocate --- C.A.V. on – 05.04.2023 Pronounced on – 20.12.2023 Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Mecon. 2. In all these writ applications, a common prayer has been made for quashing of Clause 10 (3) (iv) of Mecon Employees’ Group -2- Pension Scheme as contained in Policy Circular No. 109/2019 dated 01.05.2019, wherein it has been provided that benefit of Mecon Employees’ Group Pension Scheme shall not be available in respect of employee who has filed a case against the company or against whom the company has filed a case in any court of law until conclusion of the court case. A further prayer has been made for a declaration that Clause 10 (3) (iv) of Mecon Employees’ Group Pension Scheme is not applicable in the case of the petitioners especially when the petitioners had superannuated prior to institution of money suits against the respective petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents – Mecon to extend the benefits of Mecon Employees’ Group Pension Scheme in favour of the respective petitioners and consequently to extend the pensionary benefits under the said scheme w.e.f. the date when the said scheme was extended to similarly situated superannuated executive employees of Mecon. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 168 of 2021 after serving for 20 years in Mecon superannuated from service on 31.07.2013 from the post of Assistant General Manager (Finance). The petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 182 of 2021 superannuated from service from the post of Executive Section Officer w.e.f., 31.07.2013. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 225 of 2021 superannuated from service from the post of Manager (Drawing) w.e.f., 30.06.2013, while the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 226 of 2021 superannuated from service from the post of Senior Manager (D) w.e.f. 30.06.2013. 4. The respondent – Mecon has framed a pension scheme known as Mecon Employees’ Group Pension Scheme which was notified vide Policy Circular No. 109/2019 dated 01.05.2019, wherein it was stipulated that Mecon would contribute a percentage of the basic-pay and dearness allowance of each individual employees under the pension scheme which would be managed by the Fund Manager and annuity provider namely Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., so that monthly pension can be extended to the employees of Mecon under the aforesaid schemes. All the employees who were holding the minimum eligibility criteria applied for pension scheme and accordingly -3- individual applications were made and duly received by the respondent – Mecon. 5. However, though the pension scheme was extended to other similarly situated employees of the Mecon, but the same was not made available to the petitioner. The reason being institution of money suits against the petitioner leading to invoking of Clause 10 (3) (iv) of the pension scheme thus, disentitling the petitioners from the benefit of the said scheme. Representations were submitted by the petitioners which however were rejected and which compelled the respective petitioners to approach this court for ventilating their grievance. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners that Clause 10 (3) (iv) of the Mecon Employees’ Group Pension Scheme is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that on the date when the petitioners had superannuated from service, no case was pending against them. The subsequent initiation of money suits would not debar the petitioners from availing of the benefits of the pension scheme. It has been submitted that the pension is not a bounty, but an amount which an employee earns by virtue of long and unblemished service and denial of the same is in violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. The respondent has no right to recover half-pay leave encashment as the petitioners have a right to claim the same, on account of the policy that was prevalent and filing of money suits amounts to creating discrimination and attempts to deprive the petitioners of their pension as envisaged under the pension scheme. 7. Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Mecon has submitted that the pension scheme was introduced after due approval of the Ministry of Steel, Government of India and after approval of the Board of Directors. It has been submitted that there was an inadmissible payment towards the half-pay leave to the petitioners and repeated efforts to get the said amount refunded failed and which ultimately led to institution of several money suits against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that since the pension scheme is policy decision of Mecon duly approved by the Board of Directors, the same cannot be interfered with. -4- 8. The Mecon Employees’ Group Pension Scheme came into operation from 01.05.2019 and its date of effect for Executives was 01.01.2007 while for the non-Executives it was 01.01.2012. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners were eligible for pension under the scheme as they fulfilled the requisite criteria. The petitioners had applied for the pension scheme, but were not extended the benefits of the scheme and on query, they came to know that on account of several money suits having been filed by the Mecon for realization of excess half- pay leave and by invoking Clause 10(3) (iv) of pension scheme, such benefits have not been given. Since the pivotal issue in these writ applications is the validity or otherwise of Clause (3) (iv) of the Mecon Employees’ Group Pension Scheme, the same is quoted hereinunder: “3. (iv) An employee who has filed a case against the Company or against whom the company has filed a case in any court of law will be eligible for Pension corpus only on conclusion of the court case.” 9. The submission of learned counsel for the Mecon that the pension scheme was introduced with the approval of Ministry of Steel, Government of India seems to be a misnomer as in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4, a denial has been given to the effect that Clause 10 (3) (iv) of this pension scheme was a policy decision of Mecon and the Ministry of Steel, Government of India has no role to play. Therefore, the introduction of Clause 10 (3) (iv) of the pension scheme is an unilateral decision of the Mecon. It is noticeable that the Mecon has filed money suits against the petitioner prior to introduction of scheme. The clause under challenge appears to disentitle any eligible employee who has filed a case against the Mecon or against whom Mecon has filed a case. This clause seems to be with an intention to insulate Mecon against any case filed/ to be filed by an employee as also to compel an employee to succumb to its dictates to prevent filing of a case before the competent court of law as would be manifest from the present writ applications, wherein separate money suits have been preferred by Mecon to recover half-pay leave encashment which according to Mecon were paid in excess to such employees. The entire tenor of Clause 10 (3) (iv) of the pension scheme speaks of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. -5- The pension scheme was invoked on 01.05.2019, but its applicability was retrospective in nature and all the petitioners have superannuated from service much later to the date of applicability of the scheme. The petitioners have imbibed the legitimate expectation by virtue of their inclusiveness to the pension scheme which has been sought to be thwarted on account of Clause 10 (3) (iv) of the pension scheme. The Mecon authorities have already approached the concerned court by filing suit for recovery of half-pay leave encashment. Debarring the petitioners from availing of the benefits of the scheme by virtue of Clause 10 (3) (iv) would amount to frustrating the beneficial nature of the scheme which it was intended to propound. As a sequitter to the discussions made above, Clause 10 (3) (iv) of the Mecon Employees’ Group Pension Scheme is held to be bad in law and is accordingly quashed. 10. The respondents – Mecon is directed to take effective steps in order to enable the petitioners to avail of the benefits of the scheme, if there is no other impediment regarding the eligibility of the petitioners. 11. These writ applications are allowed. Pending I.A., if any stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R Shekhar Cp 2