R K GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Sh. R.K.Gupta against his employer-respondent no.3-Coal India Limited seeking the relief that the petitioner should be held entitled to pensionary benefits and petitioner should not be confined to him being given the benefit of provident fund.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner through UPSC joined the services of the Government of India as an Assistant Coal Superintendent Grade II in the Coal Department under the Ministry of Production on 19.5.1955. In early 1956, the Government of India set up the office of Coal Production and Development Commissioner (CPDC) under the Ministry of Production. The Management of State Collieries was brought originally under the control of CPDC and thereafter with National Coal Development Corporation Limited (NCDC), the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent no.3. In the services of the respondent no.3 and its predecessor three categories of employees were transferred from the government and its departments. The first category of employees were those Central Government employees who had opted for the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (in short "CPF Scheme"). The second category of employees were those employees of the Central Government who had opted for the pension scheme and not the CPF scheme. The third category of employees who joined the respondent no.3 and its predecessor-in-interest were employees of the Railways and who as employees of Railways did not have the benefit of a pension scheme. At the time of joining of the employees with the respondent no.3 and its predecessor, these employees were given an option as to whether they wanted or did not want to be governed by the terms and conditions as Central Government employees. It is not an issue in this case, the same being admitted by the respondent no.3, that the petitioner exercised the option to be governed by the same terms and conditions as was applicable to him as a Central Government employee i.e petitioner continued to be governed by the terms and conditions as a Central Government employee and as an employee who had exercised the option for CPF scheme and not the pension scheme. The petitioner further pleads that the Central Government thereafter on various occasions from time to time brought out schemes to enable those employees who were governed by the CPF scheme to opt for the pension scheme. The petitioner claims that the employees of the respondent no.3 such as the petitioner, who were 14 in number, were not informed of the Central Government scheme entitling the Central Government employees to switch over from the CPF scheme to the pension scheme. The petitioner claims that though he retired in the year 1986, he came to know about this aspect for the first time only in the year 1991 when the circular of 1.5.1987 of the Central Government to enable employees to change from the CPF scheme to the pension scheme, came to his notice. Petitioner thereafter is said to have made representation to the respondent no.3 vide his representation dated 3.6.1991. In this representation, the petitioner in para-9 specifically mentioned about the fact that unfortunately neither the petitioner nor other persons were offered by the respondent no.3 (or its predecessors) any option for change from CPF scheme to the pension scheme. The petitioner specifically in para-16 of this representation exercised his option for change from CPF scheme to the pension scheme. The respondent no.3 rejected this representation vide its letter dated 14/21.8.1991 by making reference to the letter dated 27.11.1990 of the Ministry of the Energy, Department of Coal, Government of India. Though the petitioner appears to have done nothing by any specific written representation from the year 1991 to 1999, it is contended that the petitioner kept on following up the matter to enable him to get the benefits of the pension scheme by exercising of the option. The records of this case show that the petitioner was successful in making the Committee of the Lok Sabha take note of his condition, and, the Committee of the Lok Sabha vide its note in the 14th Report of the Lok Sabha Committee on Petitions dated 18.3.2000 redressed the grievance of the petitioner inasmuch as, the claim of the petitioner was directed to be considered afresh. The following are the relevant observations of the Committee of the Lok Sabha:-

(3.) Finally, it appears that the petitioner's representation was rejected in July, 2003 whereafter he approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for redressal of his grievances. NHRC ultimately dismissed the petition in 2005 saying that it had no jurisdiction in such matters. The present petition in this Court thereafter came to be filed in the year 2006.