B N SAMANOTRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for direction to the respondents to grant .retirement benefits to the petitioners i.e. pro-rata pension, gratuity, leave encashment and C.G.H.S. (Medical) card for treatment of self and wife in Government Hospitals at Delhi and New Delhi or cash payment in lieu thereof with all other terminal benefits as allowed to the Government servants on retirement as per the 5th Pay Commission with interest 12% per annum.

(2.) It has been the say of the petitioners that the petitioners are eligible for grant of pro-rata pension with all other benfits based on length of qualifying service under the Government till the date of their absorption in public sector undertakings. That petitioner No. 1 joined the Army Ordnance Corps (Personal No. 21636) on20.6.1944; that he went on deputation to the Hindustan Steel Ltd. /Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Bhilai Steel Plant); that he continued on deputation from the Army Ordnance Corps till 25.8.1960 when his lien was terminated and he was permanently absorbed in the Hindustan Steel Ltd./Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Bhilai Steel Ltd.); that the total service rendered by the petitioner with the Army was 16 years 2 months and 4 days. That petitioner No. 2 joined the Army Ordnance Corps (Personal No. 21236) on 14.2.1944 and thereafter went on deputation to the National Small Industrial Corporation on 5.11.1959 and continued on deputation from the Army Ordnance Corps till 31.5.1964; that his lien was terminated and he was absorbed in the National Small Industrial Corporation; that the total service of petitioner No. 2 with the Army is 20 years, 3 months and 18 days. That petitioner No.

(3.) joined the Army Ordnance Corps (Personal No. 18381) on 16.1.1945; thereafter went on deputation to the Hindustan Steel Ltd./Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Bhilai Steel Plant) on 9.5.1958 and he continued on deputation from the Army Ordnance Corps till 11.7.1960 when his lien was terminated and he was absorbed in the Hindustan Steel Ltd./Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Bhilai Steel Plant) on 11.7.1960. The total service of petitioner No. 3 with the Army is 15 years, 5 months and 26 days. That petitioner No. 4 joined the Army Ordnance Corps (Personal No. 21874) on 29.8.1944 and thereafter went on deputation to the National Small Industrial Corporation on 15.4.1959 and he continued on deputation from the Army Ordnance Corps till 1.11.1963 when his lien was terminated and he was absorbed in the National Small Industrial Corporation; that the total service of petitioner No. 4 with the Army is 19 years, 2 months and 3 days. That petitioner No. 5 joined the E.M.E. Army Base Workshop, Delhi Cantt. (Personal No. 7123618) on 11.6.1949 and thereafter went on deputation to the National Small Industrial Corporation on 21.3.1963 and he continued on deputation from the E.M.E. till 28.3.1965 and his lien was terminated and he was absorbed in the National Small Industrial Corporation. The total service of petitioner No. 5 with the Army is 15 years, 9 months and 17 days. That as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, there is no distinction between the permanent and temporary employees in application of Pension Rules; that the petitioners case is directly covered by the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Thiruvengadam v. The Secretary to the Government of India in Civil Appeal No. 666 of 1993; that it was not open to the respondent to deny the benefit to the petitioners as it would bring into existence arbitrary classification in respect of the Government employees absorbed in the public undertakings prior to June 16,1967 and thereafter; that such classification is unwarranted under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Government Memorandum. 3. Respondent by counter-affidavit contends that the petitioners are not entitled to the retirement benefits in view of the fact that the petitioners were quasipermanent employees at the time of their absorption in various public sector undertakings; that in terms of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 14.2.1985, quasi-permanent employees of the Central Government who are absorbed in public sector undertakings are not entitled to terminal benefits which are admissible to permanent Govt. employees.