In Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association Vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry & 3 Ors., [W.P. No. 34295 of 2017], the Madras High Court has reiterated that employees of autonomous bodies cannot seek parity with employees of the government or other autonomous bodies/Public Sector Undertakings if there is no pension scheme available providing for payment of pension to the employees.
CASE SUMMARY
BRIEF FACTS:
The 1st Petitioner is an Association of employees of the 2nd Respondent, a society established and substantially funded by the Government of Puducherry. The Petitioners 2 to 5 were employees of the 2nd Respondent society and were subscribers of the GPF (General Provident Fund) Scheme introduced by the 2nd Respondent for the welfare of its employees in the year 1992. The GPF Scheme was ratified by the Governing Council of the 2nd Respondent and later resolved in its meeting to continue with the benefits like Gratuity, Pension, Family Pension etc., to its employees by obtaining specific exemption from the Employees' Provident Fund Authority. Upon their superannuation, the Petitioners were paid benefits under the GPF scheme other than pension benefits. Therefore, request was made to the 2nd Respondent to provide them with pensionary benefits. This was met with the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent rejecting the Petitioners’ claim since the Government of Puducherry had not approved payment of pension under the Scheme or made funds available for the same. Hence the Petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the 2nd Respondent’s order and further seeking a direction to quantify, fix and disburse pension to the retired employees and Family pension to the deceased employees as per CCS (Pension) Rule 1972.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
- Petitioners were subscribers to the 2nd Respondent’s GPF scheme and a subscriptions were deducted from their salary. The Governing Council had resolved to extend pensionary benefits under the GPF scheme and therefore, the subscribers should be provided with pension;
- Similar autonomous bodies/Public Sector Undertakings substantially/fully funded by the Government of Puducherry provided their employees with pensionary benefits and therefore parity should be given to the Petitioners;
- Service conditions of the employees of the Government of Puducherry were adopted for the employees of the 2nd Respondent therefore, parity is sought with the government employees for payment of pension.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY:
- GPF scheme introduced by the 2nd Respondent does not provide for payment of pension.
- Resolution passed by the Governing Council for extension of pensionary benefits and seeking funds from the Government of Puducherry towards the same is negated by the Government and therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY:
- Employees of Autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with Government employees even if the bodies are substantially/fully funded by the Government [W.A. No. 1264/2019];
- Service conditions of the autonomous bodies should consist of a pension scheme providing for payment of pension to their employees in order to claim such benefits;
- Employees of one autonomous body cannot seek parity of service benefits with other autonomous bodies/PSUs unless provided by their service conditions.
- Courts cannot interfere into policy decisions of the Government, which might have cascading effect having financial implications.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Writ Petition dismissed.
REASONS:
- Petitioners have not demonstrated violation of any fundamental/legal right, particularly when no pension fund was created and no grant in aid was provided by the Government of Puducherry towards payment of pension to the employees of the 2nd Respondent;
- No dispute with respect to payment of all other benefits to the Petitioners under the GPF scheme;
- In an identical issue with respect to payment of pension to another autonomous body funded by the Government of Puducherry [W.A. No. 1264/2019], division bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the decision of the Government citing various Supreme Court’s decisions.
- Parity of service conditions cannot be sought with other PSUs/autonomous bodies also since financial conditions differ from one body to another.
CASE LAWS FOR REFERENCE:
- The Secretary to Government (Agriculture), Government of Puducherry & 6 Ors., Vs Dr. D. Adiroubane & 2 Ors., [W.A. No. 1264 of 2019];
- T.M. Sampath & Ors., Vs Secretary to Ministry of Water Resources & Ors., [(2015) 5 SCC 333];
- State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Bhagwan & Ors., [Civil Appeal Nos. 7688-7690 of 2021]
COUNSELS:
For Petitioner: Rajeni Ramadass;
For the Government of Puducherry [R1 & R3]: M. Nirmalkumar;
For the PIPMATE Society [R2 and R4]: T.M. Naveen.
Date of Judgment: 30.04.2024
(This is a judgment summary and not an opinion piece.)
ความคิดเห็น