Tripura High Court
All Tripura Eps Pensioners' And ... vs The State Of Tripura on 5 March, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 15
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.224 of 2022
All Tripura EPS Pensioners' and Employees' Association,
having its registered office near Krishnanagar Club, Pragati Road,
Agartala, West Tripura, subsequently shifted to Bipan Bitan
Complex, Room No.344 (2nd floor), Durga Chowmuhoni, P.O.
Ramnagar, Agartala-799001 represented by its Secretary namely
Sri Durgesh Ranjan Choudhury.
......Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary, Finance Department to the
Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, P.O. New Capital
Complex, Agartala- 799010, District- West Tripura.
2. Tripura Handloom and Handicraft Development
Corporation Limited (A Government of Tripura Undertaking),
M.B.B. Sarani, PIN- 799007, Agartala, District- West Tripura,
represented by its Managing Director.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. DC Saha, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Dey, Advocate General.
Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A.
Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing and
delivery of Judgment
& Order : 05.03.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes ______
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
[T. Amarnath Goud, J]
Heard Mr. DC Saha, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms.
Ayantika Chakraborty, learned counsel for the State-respondent.
[2] This present writ appeal has been filed under Rule 2 of
Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, as adopted by the
High Court of Tripura read with Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 06.09.2022,
passed in WP(C) No.646 of 2022 whereby the learned Single Judge
has dismissed the said writ petition.
[3] The brief fact of this case is that the petitioner-appellant
herein earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing
number WP(C) 1084 of 2019 claiming its reliefs. On 13.09.2019,
the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition
with the following directions upon the respondents as well as to the
petitioner- organisation:
".......Without going into the technicalities and the prayer made by
the learned counsel being innocuous in nature, which the State in
any case is duty bound to decide, we dispose of the instant writ
petition with the following directions:
(a) The petitioners shall submit their fresh representation(s) before
the appropriate authority(s).
(b) Upon receipt thereof, the authority shall consider and decide
the same, expeditiously, in accordance with law.
(c) Preferably, such representation shall be considered and decided
within a period of six months from the date of receipt thereof.
(d) Needless to add, if the petitioners are still aggrieved, it shall be
open for them to take recourse to such remedies as are otherwise
available in accordance with law.
(e) All issues including the maintainability of the writ petition in its
present form, are left open.
With these observations and directions, the present writ
petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
[4] In compliance with the above directions, the State-
respondents had constituted an expert committee. The expert
committee had taken personal hearing of the petitioners through
their representative i.e. the Secretary of the petitioners'
organization. The committee had considered the case of each of the
Corporation and the constituted expert body finds that the
petitioners have already retired from service, and are drawing
pension under EPF scheme. After taking into consideration of
various factors, the committee ultimately came to conclusion that
the claim of the petitioner(s) in the writ petition vide No. WP(C)
1084/2019 cannot be agreed to.
[5] The petitioner association, being aggrieved, filed writ
petition before learned Court bearing case No. WP(C) 270 of 2021.
Learned Single Judge disposed of the said petition on 17.03.2022
with the direction to file separate writ petition organization-wise.
Thereafter, accordingly, the Secretary of the Petitioner Association
made separate writ petition(s) bearing case No. WP(C) 643 of 2022,
WP(C) 644 of 2022, WP(C) 645 of 2022, WP(C) 646 of 2022, WP(C)
647 of 2022, WP(C) 648 of 2022, WP(C) 670 of 2022, WP(C) 671 of
2022, WP(C) 672 of 2022 and WP(C) 673 of 2022. Learned Single
Judge by a common judgment dated 06.09.2022, dismissed the
said writ petitions with the following observation:
".........10. In this situation, in my opinion, the employees of
these statutory organizations cannot claim, as a matter of right,
the pensionary benefits, as provided to few of the corporations
who have been able to generate their own funds with one-time
support from the state government. Furthermore, the employees
of the present batch of writ petitions cannot be treated equally to
the employees of those organizations whose pension schemes
have been introduced under different schemes with the assistance
of some other organizations like LICI, bank, etc., while the pension
of the members of the petitioner's organization is determined on
the basis of the pension scheme subscribed by each of them during
his/her service tenure in the respective organization and are
primarily controlled and regulated by EPFO. As such, the
petitioners cannot complain of discrimination having regard to the
equity clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
11. Providing grants or other benefits to any of the
organizations is a matter of policy decision of the government, and
in the opinion of this court, the court cannot direct the State or its
instrumentalities to formulate certain policy because it would have
a scaring effect having huge financial implication. For this reason,
it should be left to the expert body, which, in this case was duly
constituted in compliance with a direction of this court, as stated
above, and accordingly, the committee submitted its report after
taking due hearing from the petitioners.
12. Needless to say, grant of pensionary benefit is not a one-
time payment. Extension of such benefit is a recurring expenditure
and liability would be continuous involving huge government
exchequer. In this scenario, it is ultimately the state government
and the corporation to take a policy decision as to whether such
benefits should be provided to its employees or not. It is outside
the court's jurisdiction to make a roving enquiry as regards the
fund status of the respective corporation or to chose a scheme
suitable to the employees of such corporation without the aid and
advice of the expert body. It is settled proposition of law that the
interference of the judiciary to such a policy matter having serious
financial implication and/or having a cascading effect is not at all
warranted and justified.
13. Added to it, the writ court while exercising the power of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will
not as a court of appeal sit over the well-reasoned report of the
expert body following the well-neigh principle of self-restraint in
the matter of policy decisions of the government. As a logical
corollary, both the questions set out here-in-above for decision
have been answered in negative.
14. In the light of above discussion and the reasons thereof,
this court is unable to accept the contentions raised and reliefs
claimed by the petitioner, and accordingly, all these batch of writ
petitions stand dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed."
[6] Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Single Judge
dated 06.09.2022, the petitioner association (appellant herein)
approached this Court seeking following reliefs:
"i. Admit this Appeal;
ii. Call for the records of Case No. W.P.(C) 646/2022;
iii. After hearing the parties, set aside the Judgment & Order dated
06/09/2022 passed in Case No. W.P.(C) 646/2022 and allow the
Case No. W.P.(C) 646/2022......"
[7] Mr. D.C. Saha learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the learned Single Judge has failed to understand that the
impugned order dated 28.08.2020 passed by the State Government
in its Finance Department is illegal, arbitrary and completely
unconstitutional. Learned counsel therefore, urges this Court to
allow the writ appeal setting aside the order dated 06.09.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge.
[8] Mr. Saha, learned counsel further contends that learned
Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the Committee
constituted did not provide natural justice denying personal hearing
neither for the petitioner nor for the individual members of the
Association and the appellant herein was subjected to discrimination
by the State. To support his submission, learned counsel has placed
reliance on the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the then Gauhati
High Court, Agartala Bench in WA No.74 of 2003, the contents of
the said order as referred by Mr. Saha, learned counsel is quoted
herein-below:
"50. The learned single Judge has also held that there cannot be
any formation of opinion that the employees of TJM and the
employees of other PSUs belonged to and constitute the same
class. While holding so, the learned single Judge has taken note of
the aforementioned fact relating to the exclusion of TJM from the
purview of 3rd Pay Commission at the instance of the Managing
Director of TJM, unmindful of the fact that the Govt. itself
considered the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission in
respect of TJM with the distinction of making the effective date
differently. The learned single Judge has also held that the
petitioners have failed to discharge their burden to establish that
they and for that matter the employees of TJM and their
counterparts in other PSUs belonged to same class and that the
employees of TJM have been subjected to hostile discrimination for
non-payment of revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 or DA, CAS, HRA
and CA to them.
51. The petitioners-appellants have clearly demonstrated that they
have been discriminated in the matter of granting the said
benefits. They have also demonstrated that they stand on equal
footing like that of other PSUs. It was never the contention of the
respondents that the petitioners are a class apart and cannot be
equated with that of the other PSUs. Their plea before the
amendment of the writ petition and after the amendment, has
been noted above, from which it cannot be said that the
petitioners failed to discharge their burden relating to their claim of
discrimination in the matter of pay and allowances.
52. The learned single Judge while shifting the burden to the
petitioners to prove that the payment of revised pay scales and
other allowances would be available from the income/ profit
generated by operating the manufacturing units of TJM, failed to
take note of the fact that in respect of other PSUs, it is the State
Govt. which took the burden to provide additional fund required
for the said benefits. If the TJM is a loss incurring unit, as has been
held by the Apex Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation ( Supra),
it is the bounden duty of the State Govt. to take remedial
measures and the same cannot be a ground to deny the claim of
revision of pay scales.
53. The petitioners having clearly demonstrated that if not all,
many PSUs are running at a loss and the Govt. has implemented
the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission by providing
revised pay scales to their employees and other allowances, the
learned single Judge ought to have considered that aspect of the
matter instead of singling out the petitioners and for that matter
the employees of TJM, shifting the burden to them to prove that
they are at par with their counterparts in other organizations. The
fact of the matter is that the petitioners clearly demonstrated the
disparity in the matter of revision of pay and allowances, which
the respondents tried to defend with their shifting pleas in the
original counter affidavit and the subsequent affidavits filed after
the amendment of the writ petition.
54. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion
that writ appeal and for that matter the writ petition deserves to
be allowed and consequently we set aside and quash the
impugned judgment and order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the
learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 139/1997. As a
consequence, direction is issued to the respondents to treat the
petitioners and for that matter the officers and employees of the
TJM at part with their counterparts in other 32 organizations,
entitling them to the revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and
other allowances, such as, HRA, CA, CAS and DA etc.
55. The writ appeal is allowed and consequently, the writ
petition also stand allowed, without however, any order as to
costs."
[9] Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Advocate General for the
State on the other hand, opposes the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant contending that the reference
cited by the learned counsel on order dated 08.04.2011 passed by
the then Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench
is not relevant to the fact and circumstances of this case as the
same was only for revised pay scale of the TJM employees under 4th
Pay Commission. He submits that learned Single Judge observing all
the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the order
passed by the State on 28.8.2020, decided the matter dismissing
the writ petitions filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) and thus,
the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge should not be
interfered with. He further contends that the petitioners of the
association (appellant herein) withdrawing pension as they are
entitled to as per particular pension policy and they have not
explained how they are subjected to discrimination though the
learned Single Judge by the order dated 06.09.2022 has already
examined their case on the point of discrimination. Learned
Advocate General, draws attention of this Court on paragraph-5, 6
& 10 of the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge, which is reproduced as under:
"....5. Having gone through the report, it appears that the expert body of
the State-respondents took note of the financial status of each of the
Corporation. The committee also had taken into account the circumstances
under which some of the autonomous bodies like Tripura Board of
Secondary Education, the government aided school and educational
institutions, the Agartala Municipal Corporation and Tripura Social Welfare
Advisory Board are being paid pension benefit at par with the retired
government employees. It is found that provision of providing pension
benefit to these organizations has been made either by adopting the Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or introducing separate pension scheme.
6. It further comes to fore that these autonomous bodies had created
separate scheme and had been able to generate own funds from their own
contribution and opened subscriber accounts with specified schemes of the
organization like LICI, banks etc. On the other hand, the constituted
expert body finds that the petitioners have already retired from service,
and are drawing pension under EPF scheme. After taking into consideration
of various factors, the committee ultimately came to the following
conclusion, which has been reproduced here-in-below in verbatim, for
convenience:
"Whereas, after examination of the information provided by the
concerned organisation, the Committee found that in case of
majority of the organisations the State Government provides
financial support in the form of "Grants to PSUs or Share Capital or
Other grants". These organisations are utilizing 90% of those
financial support towards meeting up the expenses on salaries and
other retirement benefits of their employees and retirees. Some
organisations are utilizing even upto 100% of the fund they
receive from State Government. The committee also observed that
most organisations were supposed to be profit-making but instead
they have been incurring loss since long years. The accumulated
loss of many organisations is huge and such loss have been
increasing with each passing day. In such situation, most of the
organisations have informed that they are not in a position to bear
the burden of additional expenditure, consequent upon
consideration of the claim of the petitioners, if any, unless the
State Government provides them additional financial support for
the purpose. The Committee also examined the details of financial
resources of the State based on the State budget of 2020-21. The
observation of Committee are as follows:-
• For the financial year 2020 21, the total budget of
Rs.19891.60 crores.
• During financial year 2020-21, the tentative earnings from
State Own Revenue is Rs. 2743.00 crores.
• The total expenditure on State Head for payment of salary,
pension etc., is Rs. 15120.29 crores. The deficit of the expenditure
is to be met up from Central Government assistance.
• Out of the total expenditure on State Head, the
expenditure on pension and other retirement benefits is Rs.
2740.44 crores which is about 18% of the total expenditure of
State Head.
• The pension expenditure itself is almost equal to the State
Own Revenue predicted during the financial year.
• The Budget deficit for the year 2020-21 is
Rs.511.41crores.
• The Fiscal Deficit of the Budget for the year 2020-21 is
Rs.2149.07Crores.
In such a situation, any further increase in the pension
liabilities would further degrade the economy of the State. Hence it
is neither possible to consider the claim of the petitioners nor to
bear any additional liabilities on the pensionary matters.
And
Whereas, in addition to the above, the Committee also
observed that pension of the retirees of the aforesaid organisations
is dependent on pension scheme subscribed by the each of them
during his/ her service tenure in the respective organisation.
During the service tenure, an employee has to subscribe to
Pension Fund as per the Scheme as in force in the organisation.
Therefore, a pensioner is basically a subscriber of pension benefit.
Upon his/her retirement, a retiree is entitled to quantum of
pension based on the fund accumulated by him/her in the
Subscriber account. Since the pension of the employees other than
State Government organisation is primarily controlled by EPFO,
therefore, the quantum of the pension cannot be altered by the
State Government. It has to be at par with the rules/ guidelines as
laid down by EPFO. Hence, the Committee observed that the State
Govt. cannot be directed to provide additional fund for
retrospective revision of pension under EPFO. So, there is no
question of revising EPF pension at higher rates on retrospective
basis.
And
Whereas, the Committee further observed that till June,
2018 the State Government followed the policy of "Defined
benefit" mode of pension payment under erstwhile CCS(Pension)
Rules 1972 as adopted in Tripura. Under that mode, there had
been substantial increase in pension expenditure over last several
financial years as compared to decline of revenue receipts. To cope
up with this expenditure scenario, the State Government opted to
introduce New Pension Scheme with effect from 1st July, 2018.
The New Pension Scheme is based on "Defined Contribution" mode
which is synonymous with pension system under the EPS. The
Committee observed that it would neither be logical nor possible to
revert back to the policy of "Defined Benefit" mode of pension for
already retired employees of PSUs etc., alike the petitioners.
And
Whereas, the Committee also considered the legal
concerns associated with the claim of the petitioners. In this
regard, Supreme Court judgement dated 25.04.2003 in A.K. Bindal
vs Union of India has been perused by the Committee. The
Committee observed that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
that the legal status of a Govt. Company is not different from any
other company registered under the Act. The fact that the majority
of shares of a Govt. company are held by the State Govt. does not
make any difference. As such employees of Government company
are not employees of the State Govt. Being employees of the
company it is the responsibility of the company to pay them salary
and if the company is sustaining losses continuously over a period
and does not have the financial capacity to revise or enhance the
pay scale, the employees cannot claim any legal right to ask for a
direction to the Govt. to meet the additional expenditure which
may be incurred on account of revision of pay scales. The
Committee observed that pension being a derivative of pay, it is
not feasible to allow revised pension to the retirees of PSUs etc.
retrospectively in violation of the guidelines laid down by EPFO.
The Committee also observed that in a similar matter
relating to WP(C) 160/2019 filed by Sri Hiranmoy Bagchi, an
employee retired from TRTC, the Hon'ble High Court has observed
that-
".... though the committee did suggest framing of the
pension scheme for the employees of TRTC, it was clearly provided
that the corporation is not in a position to weigh to burden of any
such pension liability. In other words the surplus funds required for
making such additional responsibility must come from the
Government.
The Finance Department examined the scheme and made
two pertinent observations. Firstly, it was pointed out that even in
the existing condition nearly 90% of the funds of the corporation
come from Government and only 10% is generated through its
own revenue. Any further responsibility to pay pension would put
burden on the Government exchequer which the Government is
unwilling to carry. Second pertinent observation was that the
Government of Tripura itself had replaced old pension scheme by
new pension scheme envisaging contribution from the employer as
well as employee.
It was therefore, not found feasible to introduce the
pension scheme in the original format for the employees of the
TRTC. Reasons cited by the Government for not been able to frame
a pension scheme for the petitioners and other employees of TRTC
cannot be faulted. In absence of some other valid reasons
directions contrary to such informed consideration and decision
making process cannot issued.
Thus, the Committee does not consider the claim of the
petitioners.
Now, therefore, in compliance to Order dated 13-09-2019
of the Ld. Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C)
1084/2019 followed by the representation submitted by the
petitioners and basing on the Report of the 5-Member Committee
as constituted by the State Government, the claim of the
petitioner(s) in the writ petition vide No. WP(C) 1084/2019 cannot
be agreed to."
7................
8..................
9....................
10. In this situation, in my opinion, the employees of these
statutory organizations cannot claim, as a matter of right, the
pensionary benefits, as provided to few of the corporations who
have been able to generate their own funds with one-time support
from the state government. Furthermore, the employees of the
present batch of writ petitions cannot be treated equally to the
employees of those organizations whose pension schemes have
been introduced under different schemes with the assistance of
some other organizations like LICI, bank, etc., while the pension of
the members of the petitioner's organization is determined on the
basis of the pension scheme subscribed by each of them during
his/her service tenure in the respective organization and are
primarily controlled and regulated by EPFO. As such, the
petitioners cannot complain of discrimination having regard to the
equity clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India......."
[10] Learned Advocate General to support his case on
behalf of the State, placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another vs.
Bhagwan and others reported in (2022) 4 SCC 193, the relevant
portion of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:
"....23. In view of the above factual scenario, the question posed
is:
"whether the employees of WALMI, which is an independent
autonomous entity registered under the Societies
Registration Act, are entitled to the pensionary benefits on
par with the State Government employees?"
24. While answering the aforesaid question, few decisions of
this Court on the inference of the Courts in the policy decision
having financial implications and whether the employees of the
board/societies, who are autonomous bodies can claim parity in
the pay-scale and/or other benefits which may be available to the
Government employees, are required to be considered.
25. In T.M. Sampath v. Ministry of Water Resources [(2015) 5
SCC 333], the employees of National Water Development Agency
(NWDA), an autonomous body under the aegis and control of
Ministry of Water Resources claimed the pensionary benefits on
par with the Central Government employees. Refusing to allow
such pensionary benefits to the employees of NWDA on par with
the Central Government employees, in paragraphs 16 and 17, it
was observed and held as under:-
"16. On the issue of parity between the employees of
NWDA and Central Government employees, even if it is
assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist or were not
applicable on the date of the OM i.e. 1-5-1987, the
relevant date of parity, the principle of parity cannot be
applicable to the employees of NWDA. NWDA cannot be
treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12
of the Constitution merely on the basis that its funds are
granted by the Central Government. In Zee Telefilms Ltd.
v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649], it was held by this
Court that the autonomous bodies having some nexus with
the Government by itself would not bring them within the
sweep of the expression "State" and each case must be
determined on its own merits. Thus, the plea of the
employees of NWDA to be treated on a par with their
counterparts in the Central Government under sub-rule
(6)(iv) of Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, merely
on the basis of funding is not applicable.
17. Even if it is presumed that NWDA is "State" under
Article 12 of the Constitution, the appellants have failed to
prove that they are on a par with their counterparts, with
whom they claim parity. As held by this Court in UT,
Chandigarh v. Krishan Bhandari [(1996) 11 SCC 348], the
claim to equality can be claimed when there is
discrimination by the State between two persons who are
similarly situated. The said discrimination cannot be
invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be shown
is between acts of two different authorities functioning as
State under Article 12. Thus, the employees of NWDA
cannot be said to be "Central Government employees" as
stated in the OM for its applicability."
26. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of
decisions, the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim,
as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the
Government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies
might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the
Governing Council there may be a representative of the
Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by
the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous
bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the
State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly,
when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by
their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State
Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on
par.
27. In Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
v. Balbir Kumar Walia, [(2021) 8 SCC 784], in para 32, it is
observed as under:
"32. The Central or State Government is empowered to
levy taxes to meet out the expenses of the State. It is
always a conscious decision of the Government as to how
much taxes have to be levied so as to not cause excessive
burden on the citizens. But the Boards and Corporations
have to depend on either their own resources or seek grant
from the Central/ State Government, as the case may be,
for their expenditures. Therefore, the grant of benefits of
higher pay scale to the Central/State Government
employees stand on different footing than grant of pay
scale by an instrumentality of the State."
28. As per the settled proposition of law, the Court should
refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have
a cascading effect and having financial implications. Whether to
grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the
expert body and undertakings and the Court cannot interfere
lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect
having adverse financial consequences.
29. In the present case, WALMI being an autonomous body,
registered under the Societies Registration Act, the employees of
WALMI are governed by their own Service Rules and conditions,
which specifically do not provide for any pensionary benefits; the
Governing Council of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra Civil
Services Rules except the Pension Rules. Therefore, as such a
conscious policy decision has been taken not to adopt the Pension
Rules applicable to the State Government employees; that the
State Government has taken such a policy decision in the year
2005 not to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of
the aided institutes, boards, corporations etc.; and the proposal of
the then Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to
the employees of WALMI has been specifically turned down by the
State Government. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the High Court is not justified in directing the State
to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI,
which is an independent autonomous entity.
30. The observations made by the High court that as the salary
and allowances payable to the employees of WALMI are being paid
out of the Consolidated Fund of the State and/or that the WALMI is
getting grant from the Government are all irrelevant
considerations, so far as extending the pensionary benefits to its
employees is concerned. WALMI has to run its administration from
its own financial resources. WALMI has no financial powers of
imposing any tax like a State and/or the Central Government and
WALMI has to depend upon the grants to be made by the State
Government.
31. Now, so far as the observations made by the High Court
that the amount available with WALMI and deposited with E.P.F.
towards the employee's contribution itself is sufficient to meet the
financial liability of the pensionary benefits to the employees and,
therefore, there is no justification and/or reasonable basis for the
State Government to refuse to extend the benefit of pension to the
retired employees of WALMI is concerned, it is to be noted that
merely because WALMI has a fund with itself, it cannot be a
ground to extend the pensionary benefits. Grant of pensionary
benefits is not a one-time payment. Grant of pensionary benefits is
a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous liability
in future towards the pensionary benefits. Therefore, merely
because at one point of time, WALMI might have certain funds
does not mean that for all times to come, it can bear such burden
of paying pension to all its employees. In any case, it is ultimately
for the State Government and the Society (WALMI) to take their
own policy decision whether to extend the pensionary benefits to
its employees or not. The interference by the Judiciary in such a
policy decision having financial implications and/or having a
cascading effect is not at all warranted and justified.
32. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons
stated, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the
High Court directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to
the employees of WALMI is unsustainable, both in law and on
facts. Accordingly, the impugned common judgment and order
passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside
and is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is held that the
employees of WALMI, which is an independent autonomous body
registered under the Societies Act are not entitled to the
pensionary benefits.
33. All these appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
[11] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the
record.
[12] Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of record, this
Court is of the view that violation of doctrine of recording
(opportunity of personal hearing not been given) and violation of
principles of natural justice as pointed out by the appellant is not
applicable in the present case since no right of the appellant has
been infringed by the respondent in passing an order dated
28.08.2020 and thus, the question of issuing a notice before
passing an adverse order does not arise to the facts of this case as
the same is passed considering the representation of the pensioners
as per the direction of this Court. On the point of discrimination,
Article 14 of the Constitution of India will not have a role to play
since the pensioners before this Court belong to different
associations/corporate bodies and it is not the case that they all are
maintaining the equality with all other organizations under the State
government. It is not the case of the appellant that some
employees in one of their organizations are being extended the
benefit of pension and some were denied. Hence, the case of the
appellant does not come under the Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and it is not a case of discrimination.
[13] This Court cannot compel the Government in issuing a
mandamus to frame any policy or a scheme as the same is not in
the domain of Article 226 of the Constitution of India but, it is
purely on the welfare State to frame any such policy.
[14] The argument made by the appellant that the
proceedings dated 28.08.2020 passed by the respondent-State is
arbitrary in nature and the policy of the government is bad, cannot
be accepted since no policy has been framed and the question of
challenging any such policy is not before this Court. The appellant
has also contended that an arbitrary, completely fabricated order
has been passed by the respondent-State rejecting the claims of the
pensioners, but, the appellant have not made out a case to prove
that the proceedings dated 28.08.2020 are fabricated and insofar as
other points on discrimination are concerned, it has already been
answered by the learned Single Judge. We find no infirmity in the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on
06.09.2022.
[15] In view of the above observation, the judgment and
order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is
confirmed and this present appeal stands dismissed.
As a sequel, stay if any, stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Sabyasachi G.
SABYASACHI Digitally signed by
SABYASACHI GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.03.11 16:53:43
+05'30'
