Gauhati High Court
WA/272/2023 on 5 August, 2024
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
GAHC010013392023
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(1) WRIT APPEAL NO.107 OF 2023
1. The Assam Power Generation
Corporation Limited, represented by its
Chairman, having its registered Office at
Bijulee Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati -
781001.
2. The Managing Director, Assam Power
Generation Corporation Limited, Bijulee
Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati -
781001.
3. The General Manager (HR), Office of
the Chief General Manager (Gen), Assam
Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Bijulee Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati -
781001.
........Appellants
-Versus-
1. Shri Mukut Das,
Son of Late Madhab Chandra Das,
Resident of House No.1, Madhabdevpur
Road, Rehabari, Guwahati - 781008.
........Respondent
2. The Managing Director, Assam
Electricity Grid Corporation Limited,
Bijulee Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati -
781001.
3. The Chief General Manager (HR),
Assam Power Distribution Company
Limited, Bijulee Bhawan, Paltanbazar,
Guwahati - 781001.
........Proforma Respondents
(2) WRIT APPEAL NO.272 OF 2023
1. The Assam Power Generation
Corporation Limited, represented by its
Chairman, having its registered Office at
Bijulee Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati -
781001.
2. The Managing Director, Assam Power
Generation Corporation Limited, Bijulee
Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati -
781001.
3. The General Manager (HR), Office of
the Chief General Manager (Gen), Assam
Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Bijulee Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati -
781001.
........Appellants
-Versus-
1. Shri Anal Kumar Bhagabati,
Son of Late Rup Ram Sut,
Resident of House No.12, Rupali Path,
Janakur, Near Journalist Colony,
Kahilipara, Guwahati - 781019, District:
Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
........Respondent
2. The Managing Director, Assam
Electricity Grid Corporation Limited,
Bijulee Bhawan, Paltanbazar, Guwahati -
781001.
3. The Chief General Manager (HR),
Assam Power Distribution Company
Limited, Bijulee Bhawan, Paltanbazar,
Guwahati - 781001.
........Proforma Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
For the Appellants : Mr. H.K. Das, Advocate
Mr. N.K. Sarma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate,
assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, Advocate for
respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal
No.107/2023.
: Mr. S. Muktar, Advocate for respondent
No.1 in Writ Appeal No.272/2023.
: Mr. B. Das, Standing Counsel, APDCL.
Date of Hearing : 25.07.2024.
Date of Judgment : 05.08.2024.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the
appellants in both the writ appeals. Also heard Mr. K.N.
Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J.
Patowary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in Writ
Appeal No.107/2023; Mr. S. Muktar, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.272/2023 and Mr. B. Das,
learned Standing Counsel, APDCL.
2. These 2(two) writ appeals have been preferred by
the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment & orders
dated 03.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1607/2020 and dated
16.06.2023 passed in WP(C) No.3446/2023. Judgment & Order
dated 16.06.2023 in WP(C) No.3446/2023 has been passed by
the learned Single Judge while relying on the judgment &
order dated 03.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1607/2020.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the private
respondents in both these writ appeals had retired from the
posts of General Manager in the Assam Power General
Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as "APGCL") on
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016. After their
retirement, entitlements of the private respondents like,
pension, Commuted Value of Pension (CVP), Retirement
Gratuity, Family Pension, etc., were determined and disbursed.
4. Pursuant to the resolution No.5 dated 22.11.2017,
the Board of Directors of the APGCL was pleased to revise the
pay and allowances of the employees and pensioners of the
erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) and its
successor Companies, i.e. Assam Power Distribution Company
Limited (APDCL), Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited
(APGCL), Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited (AECGL)
and accordingly, an Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2017
was issued in the name and style of "Revision of Pay Rules,
2017" (hereinafter to be referred as "ROP Rules, 2017"). Rule
1(ii) of ROP Rules, 2017 provides that the ROP Rules, 2017
came into force on 01.04.2016.
5. The appellant APGCL fixed the pension of the private
respondents as per the provisions of Rule 32(1)(b) of the ROP
Rules, 2017 and being aggrieved with the same, the private
respondents filed representations before the Chairman, APGCL
on 07.02.2018 and 23.07.2018, respectively, claiming that
their pension should be fixed by revising their last pay as per
the latest ROP Rules, as they were in service till 31.03.2016.
6. When their representations were not acted upon,
further representations were submitted by the private
respondents. However, when their representations were not
duly considered, they approached this Court by way of filing
writ petitions claiming that the pension and other benefits of
the private respondents are required to be determined as per
Rule 4 of the ROP Rules, 2017 instead of Rule 32 of the said
Rules.
7. In the writ petitions, the claim of the writ
petitioners/private respondents was contested by the
appellants. However, the learned Single Judge has allowed the
WP(C) No.1607/2020 filed on behalf of the respondent Mukut
Das vide judgment dated 03.11.2020 while issuing a direction
to the respondents in the writ petition (appellants herein) to
work out the entitlements of the respondent/writ petitioner
Mukut Das, as pensioner, under different heads, like pension,
Computed Value of Pension (CVP), Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity, Leave Encashment benefits, etc., as per Rule 4 of the
ROP Rules, 2017. It was further directed that if after such
exercise, the respondent Mukut Das was found entitled for
enhanced amount than what had been worked out by the
Office Order dated 31.03.2016, the same should be disbursed
to him in expeditious manner within 6(six) months from the
date of submission of certified copy of that judgment & order.
As observed earlier, the writ petition filed on behalf of Anal
Kumar Bhagabati was disposed of vide order dated 16.06.2023
in terms of the judgment & order dated 03.11.2022 passed in
WP(C) No.1607/2020. The relevant portion of the impugned
judgment dated 03.11.2022 are quoted herein:
"13. As per sub-rule [1] of Rule 32, the pension/ family
pension of the existing pensioners/family pensioners i.e. pre
- 01.04.2016 pensioners/family pensioners shall be revised
w.e.f. 01.04.2016 in terms of the procedure laid down by
the sub-clauses [a] and [b]. One of the issues that has arisen
for consideration is whether the procedure laid down in
subclause [a] and/or sub-clause [b] can be made applicable
to the case of the petitioner. It is settled that an employee
retires from service in the afternoon of the last day of the
month in which he attains the age of superannuation. It is
evident from Rule 34 of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 that
the age of superannuation of an employee of the erstwhile
ASEB and its successor companies including the AEGCL, is
60 years. By the Office Order bearing no.ASEB/PLT/
438/1979/268 dated 31.03.2016, the petitioner was
released from service of the AEGCL at 05-00 p.m. on
31.03.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. Since
the meaning of 'pre' is 'previous to; before', the procedure
laid down in sub-clauses [a] and [b] of Rule 32 can be made
applicable in respect of pension of the existing pensioners of
pre - 01.04.2016, meaning thereby, the same can be made
applicable in respect of those existing pensioners who had
already acquired the status of pensioner previous to or
before 01.04.2016. By no stretch, 'pre - 01.04.2016' can be
equated with '01.04.2016'
15. At this stage, it also apposite to refer to the
provision contained in Rule 4[a] of the Revised Pay Rules,
2017 which pertains to application of the revised pay. Rule
4[a] has laid down that all employees who were in services
on 31.03.2016 or who may have been appointed on or after
01.04.2016 shall draw pay in revised pay structure [Pay
Band with Grade Pay] applicable to the posts/grades which
they have been holding or to which they may have been
appointed, as the case may be. Rule 4[a] has, thus, made
reference to two categories of employees. All employees who
were in service on 31.03.2016 would be eligible to draw pay
in the revised by structure [Pay Band with Grade Pay]
applicable to the posts/grades which they had been
holding. Similarly, all the employees who have been
appointed on or after 01.04.2016, shall draw in the revised
pay structure [Pay Band with Grade Pay] applicable to the
posts/grades to which they may have been appointed.
16. In view of the settled position of law that the
employee retires from service in the afternoon of the last day
of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation
and from the Office Order dated 31.03.2016 by which the
petitioner was released from service on attaining the age of
superannuation of 60 years at 05-00 p.m. on 31.03.2016,
there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner was in service on
31.03.2016 and he also retired from service on 31.03.2016.
In other words, the petitioner was in service and had also
retired from service on 31.03.2016. This Court is, thus, of
the view that as the petitioner had not acquired the status of
pensioner on 31.03.2016 as on that date, he was in service
and had also retired from service on reaching the age of
superannuation at 05-00 p.m. He had acquired the status of
pensioner only from and on 01.04.2016. The view gets also
fortified from the Office Order bearing no. MD/APGCL/
PEN/M-16/80/23 dated 31.03.2016 which recorded that
the petitioner retired on 31.03.2016 and the petitioner was
sanctioned pension @ Rs. 24,660/- per month only w.e.f.
01.04.2016. The provisions of Rule 32[1] speak about the
existing pensioners who acquired the status of pensioner
pre - 01.04.2016, that is, previous to or before 01.04.2016
and such a status can be acquired only on or before
31.03.2016.
20. From a conjoint reading of the provisions of the
Revised Pay Rules, 2017, more particularly, Rule 1, Rule 2,
Rule 4[a] and Rule 32[1][a] & [b] together, this Court is of the
unhesitant view that the petitioner who was in service on
31.03.2016 and who retired from service on reaching the
age of superannuation also on 31.03.2016, cannot be
categorized and bracketed in the category of existing
pensioner on 31.03.2016 as he acquired the status of
pensioner only on and from 01.04.2016. In such view of the
matter, the benefits under the Revised Pay Rules, 2017
cannot be worked out by resorting to Rule 32[1][a] & [b] of
the Revised Pay Rules, 2017 but his entitlements are to be
worked out in terms of the provisions laid down in Rule 4[a]
of the Revised Pay Rules, 2017. Rule 4[a] has made the
revised pay structure [Pay Band with Grade Pay] applicable
to an employee who was in service on 31.03.2016 and the
petitioner falls in that category of employee. ......."
8. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. H.K. Das,
learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned
Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgments
dated 03.11.2022 and 16.06.2023. It is contended that the
learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the ROP
Rules, 2017 came into effect w.e.f. 01.04.2016, which means
that anybody who is in employment on the said date, will be
entitled for the benefit of revision of pay under the said Rules.
It is contended that the learned Single Judge has in
fact ordered for grant of benefit of revision of pay to an Officer
who retired on 31.03.2016, under the ROP Rules which came
into effect from 01.04.2016. It is argued that by no stretch of
imagination, an employee, who retired before implementation
of the Revised Pay Rules, can claim fixation of his pay under
the said Rules, which came into force after his retirement.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has further
argued that Rule 4 of the ROP Rules, 2017 speaks about the
existing employees of the APGCL, who were in service on
31.03.2016, however, in the case of the private respondents, it
is an admitted position that they retired on 31.03.2016 and
were not in service on 01.04.2016 when the ROP Rules came
into force.
The learned counsel has further submitted that the
appellants have rightly determined the entitlements of the
private respondents as pensioner under different heads, like
pension, Computed Value of Pension (CVP), Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity, Leave Encashment benefits, etc., by
resorting to Rule 32(1)(b) of the ROP Rules, 2017. However,
the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the provisions
of Rule 4 and Rule 32 of the ROP Rules, 2017 in the correct
perspective, has allowed the writ petitions filed by the private
respondents and has also issued a direction to grant the
benefits to them for which they are not legally entitled to.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants has further
argued that in a similar situation, the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Kerala had ordered for fixation of the pension and
other entitlements to the employees as per the
recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, which came into
effect from 01.01.1996, in favour of those employees who
retired from service on 31.12.1995 and the writ petitions
challenging the said order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal were dismissed by the High Court of Kerala. The said
order passed by the High Court of Kerala was challenged
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief General
Manager, Telecom, BSNL & Anr. -Vs- K.J. George & Ors. ,
reported in (2008) 14 SCC 699, which was disposed of by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while reversing the said judgment.
The learned counsel has further argued that in an
identical situation, the Delhi High Court in the case of Union
of India & Ors. -Vs- G.C. Yadav, reported in 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 12191 has reversed the judgment of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by
observing that an employee, who retired from service prior to
the implementation of the recommendation of the Pay
Commission, cannot claim fixation of his pay on the basis of
the revised pay scale under the ROP Rules.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants has,
therefore, argued that the impugned judgments passed by the
learned Single Judge are contrary to law and, therefore, the
same are liable to be set aside.
12. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the
private respondents have vehemently opposed the appeals and
have argued that the learned Single Judge has rightly
interfered with the matter and has committed no illegality in
passing the impugned judgment & orders. It is contended that
Rule 4(a) of the ROP Rules, 2017 specifically provides that the
employees who were in services on 31.03.2016 are entitled to
draw pay in revised pay structure (Pay Band with Grade Pay)
applicable to the posts/grades, which they have been holding.
It is contended that in the present case, admittedly, the
private respondents were in service on 31.03.2016 and as
such, their Pay Bands were required to be fixed after revising
their pays as per the ROP Rules, 2017. It is further contended
that Rule 32(1)(a) of the ROP Rules, 2017 is in relation to the
employees, who acquired the status of pensioners prior to
01.04.2016, whereas in the case of the private respondents,
they acquired the status of pensioners on 01.04.2016, i.e.
after 31.03.2016.
13. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.107/2023
has submitted that it is settled that where the language
employed in a Statute is plain and unambiguous, it is not open
for the Court to read anything into it which is not found in the
Statute. It is submitted that the language of Rule 4(a) of the
ROP Rules, 2017 clearly says that the employees who were in
service on 31.03.2016 are entitled for revised pay structure as
per the ROP Rules, 2017 and since the private respondents
were in service on 31.03.2016, the learned Single Judge has
rightly granted relief to them. In support of the above
contention, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ansal
Properties & Industries Limited -Vs- State of Haryana &
Anr., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 553, particularly, on
Paragraphs 39 & 40.
The learned counsel for the private respondents,
have, therefore, submitted that in the above facts and
circumstances of the case, no interference is called for and the
writ appeals preferred by the appellants are liable to be
dismissed.
14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, perused the impugned judgments and the material
available on record.
15. The facts which are not in dispute are that the
private respondents retired from service on 31.03.2016,
whereas the ROP Rules, 2017 came into effect from
01.04.2016. The basic claim of the private respondents was
that the latest Revision of Pay Rules, i.e. the ROP Rules, 2017,
are applicable to them and their pension should be fixed after
revision of their last pay as per the ROP Rules, 2017 as they
were in service on 31.03.2016. From the perusal of the
representations filed by the respondents on 07.02.2018 and
23.07.2018, it is clear that they had relied upon the Rule 4(a)
of the ROP Rules, 2017 to substantiate their claims.
16. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the
relevant provisions of the ROP Rules, 2017, which are quoted
hereunder:
"1. SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENTS:
(i) These Rules may be called the 'ASEB and its
Successor Companies, Revised Pay Rules - 2017'.
(ii) They shall be deemed to have come into force on
1.4.2016 in interim.
4. Application of the Revised Pay:
(a) All employees who were in services on 31st March,
2016 or who may have been appointed on or after 1st
April, 2016 shall draw pay in revised pay structure
(Pay Band with Grade Pay) applicable to the
posts/grades which they have been holding or to
which they may have been appointed as the case
may be.
(b) Provided that an employee who was in service on 31st
March, 2016 may at his/her option, continue to draw
pay in the existing pay band and grade pay (Pre-
revised), until the date on which he/she earns his/her
next or subsequent increment in the existing pay band
and grade pay or until he/she vacates his/her post or
ceases to draw pay in the existing pay band and
grade pay.
Such option, however, shall not be admissible to an
employee appointed to a post on or after 01.04.2016.
32. FITMENT BENEFIT/REVISION OF PENSIONER/ FAMILY
PENSIONERS:
1) The Pension/Family pension of the existing
pensioners/family pensioners i.e. pre 01.04.2016
pensioners/family pensioners shall be revised w.e.f.
01.04.2016 in the following procedure:-
a) The revised basic pension/family pension on
01.04.2016 of the pensioners/family pensioners who
were drawing pension/family pension on 31.03.2016
shall be fixed by multiplying the existing pension/
family pension by a factor of 2.48 and the amount so
computed shall be rounded-of to the next multiple of
Rs.10/-. The basic pension for all purposes will be
w.e.f. 01.04.2016.
b) The revised basic pension in no case shall be lower
than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay
band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the
pre revised pay scale/pay band from which the
pensioner had retired. This is applicable to those
pensioners who retired on or before 31.3.2016 and
after completing 25/33 years of qualifying service as
the case may be."
17. As per Rule 1(ii) of the ROP Rules, 2017, the said
Rules came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2016. Rule 4(a) of the ROP
Rules, 2017 talks about the employees who were in service on
31.03.2016 or who may have been appointed on or after
01.04.2016. Rule 4(b) of the ROP Rules, 2017 provides to give
option to the employees who were in service on 31.03.2016
and thereafter to draw their pay in the then existing Pay Band
and Grade Pay (Pre-revised) until the date of next or
subsequent increment. From a conjoint reading of Rule 4(a)
and 4(b) of the ROP Rules, 2017, it is clear that it is in relation
to those employees who were in service on 31.03.2016 and
continued thereafter, i.e. when the ROP Rules, 2017 came into
force. Admittedly, the private respondents were retired from
service on 31.03.2016 and they were not in service on
01.04.2016. So their claim for fixing their pay as per the
Revised Pay Rules and thereafter, to determine their
pensionary and other benefits accordingly is wholly misguided
and cannot be approved.
On the other hand, Rule 32(1)(b) of the ROP Rules,
2017 clearly provides that employees who had retired on
31.03.2016 will draw their pension not lower than 50% of the
sum of minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and Grade Pay
thereon corresponding to Pre-revised pay scale/Pay Band from
which he/she had retired.
18. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in
holding that the appellants have rightly determined and fixed
the pensionary benefit and other benefits of the private
respondents by resorting to provisions of Rule 32(1)(b) of the
ROP Rules, 2017.
The learned Single Judge has erred in concluding
that the private respondents had not acquired the status of a
pensioner on 31.03.2016 and had acquired the same only on
01.04.2016. The learned Single Judge while making the above
observations has failed to take into consideration the
provisions of Rule 32(1)(b) of the ROP Rules, 2017, which is
applicable to those employees who retired on or before
31.03.2016 and the private respondents fall within the said
category.
19. The High Court of Kerala had upheld the decision of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein relief was granted
to the 2(two) employees while giving them the benefit of
revision of pension as per the recommendation of the Pay
Commission, which came into force after their retirement.
However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.J. George (supra)
has reversed the said decisions of the Tribunal and the High
Court of Kerala by passing the following order:
"1. The respondents were working in the Telecom
Department on the posts of Senior Section Supervisor and
Section Supervisor and retired on 16-12-1995 and 3-12-
1995 respectively. In view of the provision of FR 56 they
were made to retire with effect from the afternoon of 31-12-
1995. The report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission came
into force with effect from 1-1-1996. Clause 3.1 of the Fifth
Central Pay Commission Report states that the revised
provisions shall apply to Government servants who
retire/die in harness on or after 1-1-1996.
2. The grievance of the respondents raised before the
High Court was that they should be allowed to reckon their
pensionary benefits on the basis of the Fifth Central Pay
Commission Report with effect from 1-1-1996. The Division
Bench of the High Court was of the view that since they
were made to retire with effect from 31-12-1995, till the
midnight of 31-12-1995 they were in service and, therefore,
entitled to retiral benefits from 1-1-1996. We are unable to
countenance with the decision of the Tribunal and the High
Court.
3. As already noticed, they were retired with effect
from 16-12-1995 and 3-12-1995 respectively but because of
the provision of FR 56 they were allowed to retire on the last
date of the month, the grace period of which was granted to
them for the purpose of pay and allowances only. Legally,
they were retired on 16-12-1995 and 3-12-1995 respectively
and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be held
that their pensionary benefits can be reckoned from 1-1-
1996. ...."
20. In a similar situation, the Delhi High Court in G.C.
Yadav (supra) has negated the claim of an employee by
making the following observations:-
"10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Bhardwaj; perused the record and the relevant rules,
and; having considered the submissions advanced by the
respondent and the decisions relied upon by him, we are of
the considered view that the respondent could not be
considered to have superannuated/retired on 01.01.2016,
and he could not be treated as post 2016 pensioner. We are
of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
11. Firstly, we may observe that since the date of birth
of the respondent is 01.01.1956, he attained the age of 60
years i.e. the age of superannuation on 31.12.2015. The
respondent appears to be reeling under the impression that
he attained the age of 60 years only on 01.01.2016, which
is not correct. On 01.01.2016, the respondent entered into
the 61st year of his life, having completed his 60 years on
31.12.2015.
12. ........... As at the beginning of 01.01.2016 i.e. from
00.00 hrs of 01.01.2016, the respondent ceased to be a
serving employee, having superannuated on 31.12.2015. At
no point of time on 01.01.2016, the respondent could be
said to be in active service. At no point of time, in the year
2016 the respondent worked in a post, the pay or
emoluments of which were fixed on the basis of the
recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission.
He was not entitled to receive any pay on or from
01.01.2016. Thus, the question of revision of his pay,
premised on the recommendations of the Seventh Central
Pay Commission did not arise. The said recommendations
became effective from 01.01.2016 in respect of employees
who were in service on 01.01.2016 - which the respondent
was not.
22. For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the present
writ petition and set aside the impugned order passed by
the Tribunal. We hold that the respondent was not entitled
to pay revision with effect from 01.01.2016 under the
Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendations since he
superannuated on 31.12.2015 and he was not entitled to
fixation of his pension on the premise that he retired from
service on 01.01.2016. The parties are left to bear their
respective costs."
It is noticed that the SLP preferred against the
judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in G.C. Yadav
(supra) has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.33558/2018.
21. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in Ansal Properties & Industries Limited
(supra) is concerned, there is no quarrel about the proposition
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred
judgment. However, in the present case, as observed by us, a
conjoint reading of the provisions of Rules 4(a) and 4(b) of the
ROP Rules, 2017, make it clear that these provisions would
apply in the case of those employees, who were in service on
31.03.2016, and continued thereafter, but it would not be
applicable to those employees, who retired from services on
31.03.2016. The provisions of Rule 32(1)(b) of the ROP Rules,
2017 speaks about the employees who retired on 31.03.2016
and their entitlement for pensionary benefits is to be
determined as per the said provision only. In such
circumstances, the above referred judgment is of no help to
the private respondents.
22. In view of the above discussions, the impugned
judgments dated 03.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1607/2020
and dated 16.06.2023 passed in WP(C) No.3446/2023 cannot
be sustained and they are set aside. The writ appeals are
accordingly allowed. Resultantly, WP(C) No.1607/2020 and
WP(C) No.3446/2023 filed on behalf of the private
respondents are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Mukut
Comparing Assistant
