KRISHENA KUMAR BALBIR SINGH DESH RAJ KOHLI R N MUBAYI PRESIDENT ALL INDIA RETIRED RAILWAYMEN P F TERMS ASSOCIATION BRIJ MOHAN KAUL K RAVI VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS analogous cluster of five writ petitions and one special leave petition involves a common question of law. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 352 of 1989 is President of the All India Retired Railwaymen (P. F. Terms) Association and the petition has been filed in a representative' capacity on behalf of all the members of the Association who retired with Provident Fund benefits. Writ Petition No. 361 of 1989 has been filed by three individual retired Railway employees who also retired with provident fund benefits. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1285 of 1986 retired as Block Inspector of Northern Railway on 7-1-1968, a non-pensionable post. All the petitioners except petitioner No. 5 in W. P. No. 1575 of 1986 retired from Railway service high posts. Petitioner No. 1 retired as Additional Member, Railway Board on 5-11-1960 with Provident Fund benefits. Petitioner No. 2 was Member, Railway Board and similarly retired on 1-3-1968 opting for Provident Fund Scheme as at that time the maximum monthly pension was Rs. 675 only. Petitioner No. 3 similarly retired as General Manager on 5-12-1960. Petitioner No. 4 retired as Member (Staff) Railway Board and Ex officior Secretary to the Government of India on 30-6-1977 opting for the Provident Fund Scheme. Petitioner No. 5 also retired on 19-6-1972 opting for the Provident Fund Scheme. Petitioner No. 6 retired on 28-8-1962 as Director Health, Railway Board opting for Provident Fund Scheme. Petitioner No. 7 similarly retired on 17-2-1968 as Director, Railway Board. Petitioner No. 8 retired as General Manager, Indian Railways on 15-10-1966 with the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1165 of 1989 are also similarly retired persons. The petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8461 of 1986 retired as Assistant Auditor, with Provident Fund benefits. His claim to switch over to pension after retirement was rejected. The petitioners are thus retired railway employees who were covered by or had opted for the Railway Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It is the petitioners case that before 1957 the only Railway scheme for retirement benefits in the was the Provident Fund Scheme wherein each employee had to contribute till retirement a portion of his annual income towards the Provident Fund and the Railway as the employer would make a matching contribution thereto. THIS Provident Fund Scheme was replaced in the year 1957 by the Pension Scheme whereunder the Railway would give posterior to his retirement certain monthly pension to each retired employee instead of making prior contribution to his Provident Fund. It is stated that the employees who entered Railway service on or after 1-4-1957 were automatically covered by the Pension Scheme instead of the Provident Fund Scheme. In so far as the employees who were already in service on 1-4-1957, they were given an option either to retain the Provident Fund benefits or to switch over to the pensionary benefits on condition that the matching Railway contribution already made to their Provident Fund accounts would revert to the Railways on exercise of the option.

(2.) IT is the petitioners' case that till 1-4-1957 or even sometime thereafter, the pensionary benefits and the alternative Contributory Provident Fund benefits were considered to be more or less equally beneficial, wherefore, employees opted for either of them. That the benefits of the two were evenly balanced was evidenced by the Railway Board circular dated 17-9-1960 which gave an option to the employees covered by the Provident Fund Scheme to switch over to pension scheme and vice versa.

(3.) IT is contended by the petitioners that each of the above notifications including the last one, dated 8-5-1987 had given a fresh option to some of the P. F. retirees while denying that option to other P. F. retirees who were identically placed but were separated from the rest by the arbitrary cutoff date. Each of the notification specified a date and provided that the P. F. retirees who retired on or after that date would have fresh option of switching over to the pensionary benefits even though they had already retired, and also had already drawn the entire Provident Fund benefits due to them. IT is also contended that the specified dates in these notifications having formed the basis of the discrimination between similarly placed P. F. retirees those were arbitrary and unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by giving of the option and were clearly violative of Art. 14 and also of the principle laid down in Nakara's case, (AIR 1983 SC 130), which according to counsel, is that pension retirees could not be divided by such arbitrary cut-off dates for the purpose of giving benefits to some and not to other similarly situated employees; and that by analogy the rule is equally applicable to the Provident Fund retirees as a class.