Telecom Executives' Association ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1673 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner No. 1 is Telecom Executives Association of MTNL and petitioner No. 2 is Shri K. Jawahar, President of the said Association. Petitioners seek quashing of the order and judgment dated 30.3.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the OA No. 1063/2004, preferred by them.

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2004, which does not make applicable provisions of Rule 37-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to the Officers/Optees of MTNL in the same manner as it has been made in the case of Officers, who have been absorbed in BSNL. Petitioners claim that Officers of both MTNL and BSNL belong to the same parent department, i.e., Department of Telecommunication (DOT) and their date of absorption both in MTNL and BSNL is the same, being 1.10.2000. Petitioners allege discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, coupled with violation of the provisions of Articles 16, 21 and 30-A of the Constitution of India.

3. Before going into the details and particulars of the relevant provisions and the chequered history of its litigation, it may be noted that officials of the Petitioner No. 1 Association, who have been absorbed in MTNL are also entitled to pension. Initially, petitioners and other optees of MTNL were not even granted pension in accordance with the provisions of Rule 37-A. This led Officers of the DOT to file OA. No. 797/2002 titled Joint Action Committee of MTNL Officers and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2003, passed in OA No. 1321/2002. Pursuant to the order passed in OA No. 1321/2002, the benefit of provision of Rule 37-A was extended to the Officers of the petitioner No. 1 Association also. The only difference being that pension would not be regulated by Rule 21 as far as the Officers of Petitioner No. 1 were concerned, i.e those opted for absorption in MTNL and for their pension, payment is to be made from the Trust created under Rule 37-A while payment to the absorbees in BSNL is to be made by the Central Government.

4. Rule 37-A and Sub-Rules 19 & 21 are reproduced below for facility of reference :

37-A. Conditions for payment of pension on absorption consequent upon conversion of a Government Department into a Central Autonomous Body or a Public Sector Undertaking.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(19) If, for any financial or operational reason, the Trust is unable to discharge its liabilities fully from the Pension Fund and the Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body is also not in a position to meet the shortfall, the Government shall be liable to meet such expenditure and such expenditure shall be debited to either the fund or to the Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body, as the case may be.

(21) Nothing contained in sub-rules (12) to (20) shall apply in the case of conversion of the Departments of Telecom Services and Telecom Operations into Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, in which case the pensionary benefits including family pension shall be paid by the Government.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

5. Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that Officers of petitioner No. 1 Association, as also the Officers who had opted for BSNL, belong to the parent Department i.e DOT. Considering that the date of absorption was 1.10.2000 for both, there was no justification or any reasonable classification for treating them differently. He submits that while central Government has taken upon itself the liability for payment of pension to those absorbed in BSNL, the payment to optees for absorption in MTNL is through a Trust fund. He submits that simply because MTNL employees could be posted only in Delhi and Bombay, while employees of BSNL had all-India transfer liability, this itself cannot be made the basis of treating them differently. We may note at this stage, that Sub-Rule 19 referred to earlier, provides that if for any financial or operational reasons, the Trust is unable to meet the liability from pension fund and the public sector undertaking is also unable to meet it, then the shortfall is to be made good by the Government to meet such expenditure. In other words, financial protection is equally afforded to employees or optees of MTNL.

6. We find, on perusal of the comprehensive judgment of the Tribunal that it has dealt with all the submissions and pleas, which are sought to be re-agitated before us. The Tribunal while giving the chequered history of the litigation, has noted that these applicants were seeking amendment of the notification dated 30.9.2000 by which Rule 37-A was added in the CCS (Pension) Rules. Three OAs, OA No. 796/2002 titled TES Association v. Union of India and Ors. OA No. 1321/2002 titled R. Ramachandran v. Union of India and OA No. 797/2002 titled Joint Action Committee of MTNL Officers v. Union of India were filed for similar relief and for grant of benefit of Rule 37-A of CCS (Pension) Rules to the Officers absorbed in MTNL. When OA No. 1321/2002 was decided by the Tribunal on 23.4.2003, the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sub-Rule 21 and 22 was given up. Benefit of Rule 37-A was made applicable to the applicants, who were absorbed after 30.9.2000 and the other OAs were decided in terms of the orders passed in OA No. 1321/2002. The Tribunal has rightly noted that MTNL had been incorporated as far back as on 1.4.1986 and Officers, who were working in the erstwhile Delhi Telecoms, were transferred to MTNL on deemed deputation and the process of permanent absorption was started. On account of litigation, the process could not be completed and in 2003, options were invited from Officers working in Group B service for absorption in MTNL w.e.f. 1.10.2000. The terms and conditions of absorption were duly made known to all. The applicants were at liberty to opt for MTNL or BSNL or not to exercise the option. The Officers had opted for one or the other organization and they could not seek amendment to the terms and conditions of absorption. MTNL having been incorporated 14 years back, along with number of PSUs and Central autonomous Bodies, constituted a uniform class, while BSNL whose employees had all-India liability for transfer and was constituted only on 1.10.2000, was to be governed by different set of instructions.

7. As noted earlier, Sub-Rule 19 of Rule 37A provides that the Central Government is liable to make good any shortfall in the Trust fund for discharging the liability for pension and hence, the petitioners stand duly protected for their pension payment, guaranteed by the Government. The Tribunal has also noted that apart from the petitioners having no case on merits, the present OA would also be barred by principles of res judicata. We are in agreement with the judgment of the Tribunal and the grounds set in there for dismissal of the OA.

We find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.