P S SRINIVASAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

(2.) It is not necessary to relate the facts in great details because the petitioner would be entitled to pension if the Authority was obliged in law to pay pension to the petitioner and other employees similarly situated. If there is no law governing the grant of pension to the employees the petitioner would not be entitled to any pension. The second respondent .Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority had stated in the counter affidavit that there was no scheme for the grant of pension in the Council where the petitioner was working prior to his absorption on 1.12.1970 and inasmuch as the Ministry of Commerce had not approved of the Scheme proposed by the Authority. The second respondent is not in a position to pay any pension to the petitioner and the petitioner has no legal right to claim pension and there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the second respondent to pay pension to. the petitioner. In paragraph 4 of the counter, the second respondent would state :

(3.) In paragraph 5 the position of the second respondent was made clear in the following terms: