MAHAN SINGH Vs. BHAKHRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is to the validity of fixing the date of application of notification dated February 3, 1990 (Annexure P-5) whereby the benefit of pension scheme has been extended to the regular employees of the Bhakhra Beas Management Board (for short 'the B.B.M.B.') only to those, who have been in service on January 1, 1990. The petitioner having retired earlier to that date has felt aggrieved by the fixation of date and have challenged the same.

(2.) The petitioner joined as work charge driver in Beas Satluj Link Project (for brevity 'the BSL') at Pandhoh on July 30, 1963. On the re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab by virtue of provisions of Punjab Re- organisation Act, 1966, the B.S.L. Project was taken over by the Central Government with effect from November 1, 1966. He continued to work as work charge under the Seas Construction Board constituted by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 80(2) of the Act. On October 1, 1957 B.B.M.B. was constituted under Section 79(1) of the Act. The petitioner was given appointment in the B.B.M.B. The petitioner was brought on regular establishment of B.B.M.B. with effect from January 1, 1988 in pursuance to the letter dated February 5, 1988 (Annexure P-2). At the time when the petitioner opted to come over to the regular establishment, it was agreed that for general conditions of service, he was to be governed by the provisions of Punjab Civil Rules as adopted by B.B.M.B. from time to time except those pertaining to the payment of gratuity, GPF/CPF and pension because to the regular employees of the B.B.M.B. directly recruited by them no provision was made for grant of pension. It is evident from the office order annexure P-2 that the petitioner himself opted for coming over to regular establishment and also to be governed by GPF/CPF available to the employees of the B.B.M.B. The regular employees of the Board succeeded in persuading the Board to promulgate pension scheme, which ultimately was issued on February 3, 1990 vide Annexure P-5 and it was made applicable to those employees, who were in service on January 1, 1990. The petitioner superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on October 31, 1989. On the basis of these facts, the grievance made by the petitioner is that he should have also been granted pension in accordance with the pension scheme issued on February 3, 1990.

(3.) The respondents have taken the stand that the petitioner was governed by the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, B.B.M.B. Employees Provident Fund regulations as well as the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 at the time of his retirement. Accordingly the petitioner has been granted the benefit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act as well as provident fund accumulated under the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the service rendered by him in Beas Construction Board upto March 1984 by the Regional Provident Fund and Commissioner, Chandigarh. However, he did not submit appropriate application for withdrawal of contributed provident fund available to the employees of the B.B.M.B. It is claimed that the benefit of pension was available to those regular employees of the Board, who were in service on January 1, 1990. The petitioner having retired on October 31, 1989 was not entitled to those benefits.