Delhi High Court
R.B.Chauhan vs Food Corporation Of India & Anr. on 19 February, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 18944/2006
% 19th February, 2015
R.B.CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv.
versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
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 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner, the erstwhile employee of the respondents/Food
Corporation of India, seeks the relief of being granted pensionary benefits
along with interest.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was originally the
employee of the Ministry of Food, Government of India, and his services
were transferred to the respondents/Corporation in the year 1966 under
Section 12A of the Food Corporations of India Act, 1964(hereinafter
WPC 18944/2006 Page 1 of 6
referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner in terms of the Act had to apply for his
option for converting the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) entitlement to
a pensionary entitlement but the petitioner did not do so. Petitioner had one
more opportunity when the respondent issued its Circular dated 11.01.1977
on amendment of Section 12A of the Act entitling a fresh option to be
exercised to the transferee employees within a period of six months.
Admittedly, the petitioner again did not exercise the option in time. The
relevant portion of this Circular dated 11.1.1977 reads as under:-
"THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE
NEW DELHI
No. 13-1/74-EP Dated: 11th Jan., 1977
CIRCULAR
Subject :- Amendment of Selection 12-A of the Food
Corporation's Act, 1964- Exercise of fresh option by Food
transferee employees in terms of such section 4 (A).
-----------------------
1 The provisions of Section 12-A of the Food
Corporation's Act, 1964 have been amended with a view to
give a fresh opportunity to the Food transferee employee to
exercise an option to be governed :-
a) by the scale of pay applicable to the post held by
him under the Government immediately before the date of
transfer or by the scale of pay applicable to the post under
the corporation to which he is transferred,
b) by the leave, provident fund, retirement or other
terminal benefits admissible to employees of the Central
Government in accordance with the rules and orders of the
WPC 18944/2006 Page 2 of 6
Central Government as amended from time or the leave,
provident fund or other terminal benefits admissible to the
employees of the Corporation under the regulations made
by the corporation under this Act.
2. A text of the ordinance promulgated by the
President to amend the Food Corporations' Act, 1964 is
enclosed herewith as Annexure 'A'. The amended
provisions inter-alia provide for the following :-
i) All serving employees in respect of whom formal
orders of transfer to FCI have been made will exercise the
option afresh within a period of six months from the date of
the ordinance, irrespective of whether they had or had not
exercised option earlier. (sub-section 4A (a) of the
Ordinance).
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Sd/-
(V.P. KAPOOR )
JOINT PERSONNEL MANAGER
To :
1. All Zonal /Sr. Regional /Regional/District
Managers, FCI.
2. Joint Manager (PO), FCI, Calcutta
/Madras/Kandla/Vizag.
3. Regional Director (Food), Calcutta /Madras/
Bombay.
4. Joint Manager, (Engg-II) Project Wing, FCI, New
Delhi.
5. Principal, CTI, FCI, New Delhi.
6. Unit Manager, Nutro Food Unit, FCI, Ujjain.
7. Unit Manager, Maize Mill, NIT, FCI, Faridabad.
8. Joint Manager (Estt.), FCI, Head Office, New
Delhi.
9. PS to Chairman/M.D.
10. PA to CCM / PM / JPM.
WPC 18944/2006 Page 3 of 6
11. Dy. Manager ( Ros. Coll) in Head Office. Ho May
please ensure that immoddato action is taken to implement
the above instructions. The receipt of the progress report
preseribed above may also be wanted and the position put
upto me.
12. All Heads of Division in the Head Office.
13. DM (E.I) DM (E.II) / DM (Pension Cell) in the
Head Office.
14. BIF ( 3 copies).
Copy for information to :-
1. Sh. Bakshi Ram, Dy. Secretary, Min. Of Agri, &
Irrigation, (Department of Food), New Delhi with ref. to his
letter No. A, 38020/1/74-FC-III dated the 7th Jan, 1977.
2. The secretary, Food Corporation of India, Head
Office, New Delhi for further necessary action."
3. Not only, the petitioner did not apply within a period of six
months in terms of the Circular of the respondents dated 11.01.1977,
petitioner has in fact admittedly received the CPF benefit from the
respondents/ FCI totalling to Rs.2,42,931/- without any protest. CPF benefit
is an alternative to pensionary benefits and thus an employee cannot claim
and receive pensionary benefits once he has received the CPF benefit.
4(i) Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not
informed of his rights to exercise such an option, however, nowhere does the
Circular require that each employee must be individually informed of the
Circular. Ordinarily it is sufficient if an employer has given notice to the
employees by pasting of the Circulars on the Regular Notice Board. This
Court therefore refuses to accept the lame excuses given by the petitioner for
WPC 18944/2006 Page 4 of 6
failing to exercise such an option in terms of the relevant Circular dated
11.01.1977 in terms of which hundreds and thousands of employees of the
respondent have exercised option of pensionary benefits by surrendering the
CPF benefits.
(ii) Also, it is required to be noted that in the present case, exercise
of option was in terms of a statutory amendment to the Act, and the
petitioner therefore cannot plead ignorance of law.
5. I asked the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the
petitioner, while receiving a sum of Rs.2,42,931/- had received the CPF
amount under protest and there is any document to show that the petitioner
has received an amount of CPF without prejudice, however the counsel for
the petitioner could give no reply to the court's query. Of course, receiving
the amount without prejudice, in any case, would not have made any
difference in view of the fact that the petitioner had never exercised the
option in terms of the Circular dated 11.01.1977.
6. Therefore, the petitioner has no case whatsoever of any legal
entitlement for claiming pensionary benefits as the petitioner had neither
exercised the option and also because the petitioner has already received a
sum of Rs.2,42,931/- towards provident fund.
WPC 18944/2006 Page 5 of 6
7. I may state that this Court also would not have territorial
jurisdiction and this petition was liable to be dismissed on account of lack of
territorial jurisdiction because the petitioner retired in the year 1988 from
Faridkot in Punjab and the relevant authorities at Faridkot in Punjab would
have passed orders with respect to the pensioner, but since I have decided
the case on merits I am not deciding the case on the aspect of lack of
territorial jurisdiction.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the
same is therefore dismissed. No costs.
FEBRUARY 19, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
sn
