SIDDH NATH BHARDWAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under: "(i) to direct respondents to pay the post retirement benefits as admissible to the employees of Union of India such as pension, Group Insurance and other post retirement benefits along with interest to the petitioner; (ii) to treat the petitioner in service as Assistant Manager (Depot) Food Corporation of India Dholpur till March 31, 1985 and to pay him duty salary for month of March, 1985 along with interest.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the petitioner came to be appointed as Enquiry Inspector in the department of Food and Civil Supplies, U. P. Vide order dated July 1, 1947. The petitioner was declared surplus and retrenched due to the General Retrenchment Scheme on July 2, 1953. On the basis of six years experience the benefit was provided to retrenched employees and the petitioner was selected for the appointment in the cadre of Verification Inspector in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi vide order dated August 27, 1958. After coming into force the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (for short 'act'), the petitioner was transferred and posted on deputation as Senior Godown Keeper/asstt. Grade-I in Food Corporation India (for short 'fci') on October 20, 1966. The petitioner was elevated in the cadre of Quality Inspector Grade-I vide order dated March 16, 1968. In July, 1982 the petitioner was transferred and posted as Assistant Manager (Depot) Food Corporation India in District Dholpur, Rajasthan, vide order dated July 18, 1982. The petitioner worked on this post till February 28, 1985. The date of birth of the petitioner is March 1, 1927 and he ought to have retired on March 31, 1985, but he stood retired on February 28, 1985. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that as per Section 12-A of the Act the Officers and Staff are required to exercise option. The first option is required to be given before the order of transfer is made to indicate as to whether the employee willing to be transferred to the Corporation or not and the second option has to be exercised within six months from the date of transfer as to whether he would like to be governed by the retirement benefits of Central Government or of the Corporation. The petitioner averred that Union of India did not seek option of the petitioner for his transfer/absorption in the Food Corporation India, which was obligatory in view of Section 12-A of the Act. Therefore the petitioner could not exercise his option or his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation within the stipulated period till his retirement. Therefore the petition remained and retired as employee of the Central Government.

(3.) IT is well settled that pension is a right and the payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Employer. Even if option in regard to pension is not exercised by the employee, he could not be deprived of the pension which otherwise would have been payable to him. In Dhalu Ram vs. RSEB Jaipur (1), the Division Bench of this Court indicated as under:- ". . . . . . Even if it is assumed that at same point of time the petitioners should be deemed to have opted for CPF scheme of the Board on account of their services being placed at the disposal of the Board the option was not voluntary made and as such should not be allowed to defeat the claim of the petitioners. We are, therefore, of the clear view that the present petitioners could not have been deprived of their pensionary rights by thrusting upon them an option which was likely to take away their pensionary rights. "