Shri K.M. Vaghela vs Union Of India And Ors

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 5110/1998

%                                                     30th September, 2013

SHRI K.M. VAGHELA                                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Advocate.


                          Versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                               ......Respondents.
                  Through:               Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate with
                                         Ms. Saadhvi Shahi, Advocate for
                                         respondent No.1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was previously an

employee of the Food Corporation of India (FCI)/respondent No.2, and who

thereafter joined the Central Government, Ministry of Food and Civil

Supplies/respondent no.1, seeks the relief of joining of his services rendered

with FCI to the service period with the respondent No.1/Union of India

through the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies for the purpose of grant of

pension.

W.P.(C) No.5110/1998                                               Page 1 of 5
 2.           That there is a circular dated 17.10.1984 of the respondent No.1

with respect to joining of services of an employee of Central Government

with a central autonomous organization and vice versa is not disputed. In

fact, this circular is filed as Annexure R-2 to the counter-affidavit of

respondent No.1. In terms of circular dated 17.10.1984 benefit of joinder of

services is granted when the employee on joining the central government

exercises the option of joining his two services and grant of pension by the

central government, by surrendering the CPF benefits which are with the

autonomous organization, and which CPF amount with interest the

autonomous organization remits directly to the new employer/Central

Government/respondent No.1.

3.           In the present case there is no issue raised by the respondent

No.1 that the petitioner had exercised the requisite option and that the

respondent No.2/FCI transferred the CPF benefits of the petitioner to the

Central Government, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies in terms of an

order dated 30.3.1985 which is filed as Annexure P-11 to the writ petition.

Therefore the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the circular dated

17.10.1984 for joinder of his services with the respondent No.2/FCI to the

services rendered with the respondent No.1/Union of India for the purpose

of pensionary benefits.

W.P.(C) No.5110/1998                                             Page 2 of 5
 4.           The only defence which is urged in the counter-affidavit of the

respondent No.1 is that as per the definition of autonomous organization

given in the circular FCI is not a central autonomous organization because

more than 50% of the expenditure of FCI is not met through cess or central

government grants. I find this a very questionable defence because except

this self-serving averment, nothing else has been filed or stated. It is a well

known fact that there is no private investment in the FCI as it is fully funded

by the Central Government and therefore I do not understand how this

defence is taken up for the sake of defence. In fact, if this defence was

genuine, the respondent No.1 would have filed the balance sheets and

income and expenditure statement of respondent No.2 to show that

FCI/respondent no.2 is not funded by the Central Government. I may note

that Section 5 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 provides that it is the

Central Government which from time to time provides capital of FCI. Sub-

section(3) of Section 5 states that such capital is provided by the Central

Government after due appropriation made by Parliament by law for the

purpose and subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined by

the Government. I need not elaborate any further on this aspect because

surely FCI is not a private corporation, and in fact, FCI was formed because

the entire department of the Government pertaining to functions of the food

W.P.(C) No.5110/1998                                             Page 3 of 5
 department were specifically transferred to the respondent No.2-corporation

for independent functioning.

5.           In view of the above, it is clear that there is an applicable

circular of the respondent No.1 dated 17.10.1984, as per this applicable

circular services of an employee rendered with the respondent No.2 can be

added to the services rendered by the employee with the respondent No.1,

the requirement of CPF benefits being transferred by the respondent No.2 to

the respondent No.1 stands complied with is an undisputed fact, and also the

fact that respondent No.2 is undoubtedly a Government of India Undertaking

covered under the circular dated 17.10.1984, therefore, the petitioner is quite

clearly entitled to join his services rendered with the respondent No.2 with

his services rendered with the respondent No.1 for calculation of pensionary

benefits.

6.           Writ petition is accordingly allowed and respondent No.1 is

directed to give all terminal benefits including the pensionary benefits to the

petitioner taking the total service period for grant of pension as the total

period of services rendered by the petitioner with the respondent No.2 and

the respondent No.1. Necessary payments pertaining to pensionary benefits

be made to the petitioner by the respondent No.1 within two months from

today alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on the amount which would be

W.P.(C) No.5110/1998                                             Page 4 of 5
 due to the petitioner. I may note that pension amount will now have to be

re-calculated because the services of the petitioner with the respondent No.2

will have to be added to the total services for calculating the pension.

Respondent No.1 should make the necessary calculations and after giving

credit to the petitioner of amounts already received by him, it should pay the

balance due within two months from today alongwith interest as stated

above. Parties are left to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 30, 2013                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne W.P.(C) No.5110/1998 Page 5 of 5