HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.5661 of 2019
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kakara Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
2 Petitioner is an association of ONGC Retired Officers' Association, Hyderabad, and its registered office is situated at UILC Towers, 8th Floor, ONGC Limited Liaison Office, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, vide Registered No.312 of 2018.
3 The case of the petitioner is that the members of the petitioner association are senior citizens who have retired prior to 01.01.2007 and that though they are entitled to the benefits under the scheme called ONGC Self Contributory Post Retirement and Death in service Benefit Scheme 1991 (PRBS-31) which was formulated for the purpose of providing pension and other pensionary benefits for the employees who retired / ought to have retired from the first respondent Corporation or to those executive employees who died while in service. The object of the above scheme was to take care of the post retirement needs of the officers so as to afford them a reasonable standard of living to those officers who retired from the first respondent Corporation. The said PRBS-31 was amended and a new Circular was issued i.e. PRBS- 2 40 dated 18.06.1998 bringing out certain modifications to PRBS-
31. Before carrying out the amendments to PRBS-31, ONGC ought to have taken approval from the Government. Whereas without taking prior permission seeking amendment to PRBS-31, ONGC has rolled out PRBS-40 dated 18.06.1998 bringing modifications to PRBS-31, which has caused loss to the retired employees to larger extent. Therefore, the scheme continued till 31.03.2007. Thereafter, certain amendments were brought to PRBS-31 by bringing PRBS-64 dated 31.12.2007 which was made applicable retrospectively from 01.04.2007. Subsequently, ONGC introduced PRBS-71 dated 26.11.2013 modifying the earlier scheme from Defined Benefit Scheme to Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. PRBS-71 was made applicable only from 01.01.2007 onwards. Therefore, the benefits that were accrued to the retired employees under PRBS-71 were not given to the employees who have retired prior to 01.01.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that PRBS-64 was restricted to those employees who retired after 01.04.2007, whereas PRBS-71 was further back dated and it was made applicable to the retirees from 01.01.2007. The members of the petitioner's association who retired prior to 01.01.2007 are being given very meager amounts in terms of pension and also the retirement benefits that were paid to them were calculated without taking into consideration their pay revision. It is further submitted that the Government promulgated 3 Employees Pension Scheme (EPS) in the year 1995. The benefits that were accrued to the members of the petitioner association were also not given to them till date.
4 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the first respondent introduced a scheme called 'Agrani Samman' Ex-gratia benefit scheme to mitigate the hardship of post separations by the retired employees. The said scheme was revised in the year 2003. The ex-gratia benefit is also very meager. For considering under the said scheme, most of the members of the petitioner association are not considered as almost all the members have retired after 1991 and they are enrolled under PRBS scheme.
5 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the first respondent also introduced a scheme called 'Asha Kiran' on 15.10.2013 for providing financial assistance to the employees who retired prior to 01.01.2007 for taking care of emergency needs and it is admissible only in case of loss / damage on account of natural calamities like flood, cloud burst, fire building collapse, earth quake, storms, cyclones, tsunami etc. To be considered under this scheme, a retired employee should not be having a monthly income more than Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, in all circumstances, the only source of livelihood for the members of the petitioner association is under PRBS.
46 The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that when the first respondent initially introduced PRBS-31 in the year 1991, it was sought for providing better retirement life for all those retirees who retired from the first respondent Corporation. The amounts that were sanctioned to them post retirement were reduced by introduction of concept called notional pay. Without considering all these aspects, the respondents are excluding the retirees who retired prior to 01.01.2007 in PRBS-71. If EPS-1995 is implemented from 1995 onwards, the members of the petitioner association would have been getting more pension than they were actually drawing now.
7 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the members of the petitioner association requested the authorities to implement PRBS-71 to them or to implement the original scheme PRBS-31 without taking into consideration the notional pay. The members of the petitioner association made representations on 21.05.2015, 23.07.2015 and 06.04.2017 to implement PRBS-71 & EPS-95 scheme which would be more beneficial than actually what they are drawing to the retirees who retired prior to 01.01.2007. Hence the present writ petition. 8 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents preliminarily takes an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on several aspects. Importantly, the first objection is 5 that the writ petition is not maintainable in the absence of the particulars of the members of the petitioner association; secondly, the cause of action arises for filing this writ petition is at Dehradun where the second respondent Trust is situated and hence the High Court at Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner association has been formed only for the purpose of filing the present writ petition in the year 2018. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors1 and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable unless the cause of action to file the same has arise in full or part within the area of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. He further submits that none of the members of the petitioner association has retired within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and that ONGC is not located in Hyderabad as on the date of filing of the writ petition. He further submits that the Post Retirement Superannuation Benefit Scheme (PRBS) was introduced in ONGC with effect from 01.04.1990 with due approval of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. The employees who retired after 01.04.1991 were eligible for the benefits of the scheme. It was a self-contributory scheme where only employees' contributed to the fund. The PRBS Trust is an approved superannuation fund under Section 2(2), Schedule-4 Part-B of Income Tax Act, 1961. He also 1 (1994) 4 SCC 711 6 submits that the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) guidelines were issued on 26.11.2008 for revision of pay scales of Board level and below Board level executives and Non-Unionised Supervisors in Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs)-revision of scales of pay with effect from 01.01.2007 which inter alia states about Superannuation benefits. Accordingly DPE guidelines were issued on 02.04.2009. In view of the stated DPE guidelines, the PRBS scheme was converted from defined benefit to defined contribution scheme vide PRBS Circular-71 and that under the converted scheme, the employer i.e. ONGC also started contributing to the pension fund of the employee. However, as per the above DPE guidelines, the case of CPSEs, the Pensionary benefits were extended to employees retiring on or after 01.01.2007 and thus the employees who retired before 01.01.2007 were not eligible and may not be considered to be covered under PRBS-71. Therefore, he submits that in view of the above DPE guidelines, the members of the petitioner association are not eligible to be covered under the PRBS-71. Since the petitioners do not fall within the zone of consideration their case is not considered in accordance with the guidelines issued by ONGC. Hence prays to dismiss the writ petition.
9 This Court, after considering the rival contentions, is ceased of the fact that the representations were made at Dehradun. It 7 appears that the writ petitioner association was registered only in the year 2018 and the said representations were made prior to the registration of the petitioner association and it is also to be noticed that the office of the respondent is located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. Though the action of the respondents is unfair in not passing any orders on the representations made by the members of the petitioner association and sitting over the same is per se illegal, but, upon considering the fact that none of the members of the petitioner association has retired within the jurisdiction of this Court, and in the absence of establishing that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and in view of the principle laid down in Utpal Kumar Basu case, without expressing any opinion on merits and facts and circumstances of the case, is constrained to dismiss the writ petition only on the ground of maintainability. 10 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, this order does not cause any hindrance to the petitioner to work out its remedies available under law. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand dismissed.
-------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 24.02.2023 kvsn