SHIVARAM ANKUSH MUDRAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five writ petitioners were the employees of the Bombay Port Trust working on Class III post. All of them retired on different dates between 1st January 1979 and 31st March 1979. The dispute in this petition relates to the entitlement of their pensionary benefits.

(2.) WHEN the petitioners joined service they were admitted to Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. They continued to be governed by the said scheme till 1979. On 8th May 1979, the Trustees of the Port of Bombay by Resolution No. 137 of 1979 adopted the liberalised provisions of pension of the Third Pay Commission for various categories of employees including Class III and Class IV employees. It was made applicable to Class III and Class IV employees if they opted for pension and agreed to be governed by the definition of pay as applicable to the Central Government employees. The option was given to those employees who were in service on 31-12-1978. The petitioners who retired between the period from 1-1-1979 to 31-3-1979 opted to come under the Pension Scheme with the Port Trust definition of pay, as it was found more beneficial to them. Soon thereafter, on 25-5-1979 the Government of India introduced a liberalised scheme of pension. This scheme was sought to be made applicable only to those Government servants who were in service on 31-3-1979 and retired from service on or after that date. The petitioners did not fall in the category of persons who were sought to be governed by this scheme. The cut off date given in this was, however, challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its well known decision in the case of (D. S. Nakra) A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 130 held the classification to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. It extended the benefit of the said scheme to all employees irrespective of the date of retirement.

(3.) AFTER the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court the petitioners approached the Port Trust of Bombay to allow them also to have the benefit of the Liberalised Scheme of 1979. There was no dispute that they too after the judgment of the Supreme Court in D. S. Nakras case were governed by the said Scheme. There was, however, one hurdle against them and that was that they had given an option prior to the coming into force of the new Scheme of 1979. The scheme became applicable to them as a result of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. They wanted that their option should either be ignored or they should be allowed to revise the option in view of the subsequent developments. The Port Trust found merit in their contention. It was inclined to give the benefit of liberalised pension scheme also to Class III and Class IV employees who retired on 31-12-1978 and who had opted for the Port Trust pension of pay, as that would be more beneficial. According to it the only remedy for that purpose was to give them a fresh option to choose between the Port Trust definition of pay and the Central Government definition of pay for pension. Accordingly, the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the Port Trust, by his letter dated 20th July 1985, wrote to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping and Transport asking for orders as to whether such a fresh option can be given and whether their pension and D. C. R. G. should be recalculated on the basis of the Central Governments definition of pay giving the benefit of the liberalised pension formula. In the said letter it was also pointed out that as only a few such employees had chosen to be governed by the Government definition of pay and in all the cases the revised pension with effect from 1-4-1979 (including periodical relief) would be more beneficial to the petitioners it would be more convenient if the Government straightaway approved recalculation of their pension on the basis of the Government definition of pay as this would obviate a lot of avoidable clerical work. The Department of Surface Transport, however, by its letter dated 16/18-2-1985 addressed to the Chairman of the Port Trust, Bombay expressed disagreement with the recommendation of the Port Trust. Hence the present petition.