BHARAT PETROLEUM (ERSTWHILE BURMAH SHELL) MANAGEMENT STAFF PENSIONERS AND ORS. versus BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 962 · Decided: 13-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHARAT PETROLEUM (ERSTWHILE BURMAH SHELL) 
MANAGEMENT STAFF PENSIONERS AND ORS. 
v. 
'1' 
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
MARCH 13, 1990 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Labour and Services: Pension-Restoration of commuted por-
tion of pension-Retired staff of Bharat Petroleum (erstwhile Burmah 
c 
Shell)-Whether and when entitled to. 
,,.... 
Some of the erstwhile employees of Burmah Shell, in an earlier 
,_ 
writ petition, claimed restoration of the commuted portion of pension 
and enhancement of pension on par with the pensioners of Hindustan .... 
Petroleum Corporation Limited, (HPCL). At the time of hearing, the 
D 
claim for restoration of the commuted portion of pension was given up. 
This Court accepted the claim of the petitioners as regards enhance-
ment of pension and ordered a sizeable hike in the pension. The present 
writ petition claims the same relief which was given up at the time of 
hearing of the earlier writ petition, viz., restoration of commuted por-
lion of pension. Admittedly, HPCL had deferred its decision till 1992 in 
>---., 
" 
this regard. 
On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that though, HPCL 
has deferred its decision till 1992, the petitioners were not precluded •
from approaching this Court and that the earlier decision did not 
operate as res judicata. 
p 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that as soon as 
-..: 
HPCL revises its scheme the petitioners would also be entitled to the 
benefit thereof and that grant of the relief earlier would create disparity 
between the persons who receive pension from HPCL and those from the 
Respondent. 
G 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. It would be inappropriate to interfere and grant the 
'r~
relief as prayed for at this stage since that would create disparity bet-
ween the personnel who receive pension from Hindustan Petroleum 
H 
Corporation Ltd. and the respondent Corporation. t965B] 
962 
STAFF PENSIONERS v. B.P. CORPN. IK. RAMASWAMY. J.] 
963 
1.2. This Court has already held that the retired personnel of 
Burmah Shell would be entitled to a hike in p_ension at par with pensio-
ners of HPCL. (W.P. No. 590/87 decided on ll.5.1988). HPCL has not 
accorded to its pensioners the relief of restoration of the commuted 
portion of pension after the expiry of 15 years. The order passed by this 
Court is as recent as May ll, 1988. After such a short time lag and in 
A 
the absence of any substantial change in the position, it is not desirable 
B 
to entertain the claim for restoration of commuted pension. The 
petitioners are governed by a special scheme, which ;.. not at par with Govern-
ment employees or the other Public Sector Undertaking'l. [964G-H; 96SA] 
Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India, [1987] l SCC 142, 
referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 215 of 
1989. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
M.S. Gujral, Ms. Kirti Misra and B.B. Sawhney for the Petitioners. 
G.B. Pari, O.C. Mathur, Ms. Meera and S. Sukumaran for the 
. ~ 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. RAMASWAMY, J. This writ petition under Art. 32 filed on 
behalf of about 450 erstwhile employees of M/s. Burmah Shell retired 
between May 1, 1979 and December 1984, is for a mandamus or direc-
c 
D 
E 
tion to the respondents to restore full pension (which had been com-
muted) to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and others similarly situated upon 
f 
the expiry of 12-1/2 years from date of retirement in case of those 
retired prior to April 1985 and after 11-1/3 years to I.hose retired prior 
to April 1, 1985 from their respective dates of retirement. They claim 
that though in their previous Writ Petition No. 590/87 disposed of by a 
Division Bench of this Court on May 11, 1988 of which one of us 
(Ranganath Misra, J.) was a member, a hike in the pension effective 
G 
from May 1, 1988 was granted. Consideration of the present relief had 
been left over for a later period. Admittedly, the petitioners in Writ 
Petition No. 590/87 sought two reliefs, namely, (i) restoration of the 
commuted portion of the pension, and (ii) enhancement of pension on 
par with the pensioners of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation 
Limited, for short 'HPCL'. During the course of hearing, claim for the 
H 
A 
B 
c 
964 
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS 
[ 1990] I S.C.R. 
first relief was given up and submission was confined to the second 
relief. This Court accepted the conte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.