Mohan Narayanan vs Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd
2015 Latest Caselaw 3471 Del

$~8
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CS(OS) 504/2011

       MOHAN NARAYANAN                                    ..... Plaintiff
                   Through:              Ms. Deepika V. Marvaha, Ms.
                                         Worthing Kasar & Mr. Vaibhav
                                         Asthana, Advs.
                           versus

       FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA LTD               ..... Defendant
                   Through:  Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with
                             Mr. Raj S. Mittal & Mr. Ankur
                             Manchanda, Advs.

%                                        Date of Decision: 29th April, 2015

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                           JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

IA No. 579/2015 Learned counsel for the applicant-defendant states that in view of the reply affidavit and the objections filed by the plaintiff he wishes to withdraw the present application.

Consequently, the present application is dismissed as withdrawn. IA No. 23076/2014

1. Present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a direction to the defendant to abide by the order dated 24 th September, 2014 and to release both the benefit defined and contribution defined superannuation benefits.

2. It is pertinent to mention that on 24th September, 2014, the predecessor of this Court had directed release of undisputed pension in favour of the plaintiff. The payment was to be paid by defendant No.1 and/or LIC in favour of the plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that despite the categorical direction given by this Court the defendant has refused to release the contribution defined superannuation benefit.

4. Mr. Suhail Dutt, learned senior counsel for the defendant-company submits that the order dated 24th September, 2014 was a consensual order passed after the defendant had given its consent for release of Rs. 31,881/- per month sought by the plaintiff in his application being IA No. 13841/2014.

5. Mr. Dutt has also drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 22nd April, 2015 written by the LIC to the Trustees, Goetze (India) Limited Senior Staff Superannuation Trust wherein it is stated that once annuity is paid to the annuitant, it is irrevocable and the same cannot be recovered back from the annuitant.

6. Consequently, he submits that if the plaintiff was to succeed in the present suit it would be impossible for the LIC and/or the defendant to recover back the contribution defined superannuation benefit.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 24th September, 2014 is not a consensual order. It is an order which is not based on any party's consent. In fact, the order is based on the defendant's own letter dated 14 th April, 2008 which reads as under:-

".............................hence you will be getting 2 type of pensions one is benefit defined (from your date of joining) (3.10.1972) to 31.03.2003 and 2nd is contribution defined (from 01.04.2003 to (date of leaving) 31.01.2008)"

8. The predecessor of this Court in the interim directed the defendant to abide by its own communication dated 14th April, 2008.

9. In the opinion of this Court, the rationale behind the order dated 24 th September, 2014 is that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the plaintiff should at least receive those pensionary benefits which he would be entitled to even if he were not to succeed in the present case.

10. It is pertinent to mention that the admitted position is that if the plaintiff was to succeed in the present suit, he would get a much higher amount as pension then being offered by defendant vide letter dated 14th April, 2008.

11. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the intent behind the order dated 24th September, 2014 was to ensure payment of those benefits which the plaintiff would in any event be entitled.

12. The concern expressed by LIC in its letter dated 22nd April, 2015 can be taken care of by directing that the lesser amount received by the plaintiff today under the contribution scheme would be offset/adjusted against the higher amount under the benefit defined superannuation scheme, if found payable by this Court.

13. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J APRIL 29, 2015 nk