LexDAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & OTHERS versus BACHAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l2009111 S.C.R. 710 ,.- A DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & OTHERS y ,._ v. BACHAN SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 2009) B JULY 30, 2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] " Service law: Retirement benefits - Circulars issued c asking employees to give option for retiral benefits - Respondent-employee did not exercise option - Benefits denied - W~it petition - High Court held that employer failed to produce record showing that the circulars were actually - noted in writing by employee, which led to inference that he D had no knoyvledge about the options called by employer - Interference with - Held: High Court's order was rational, just I( - I and fair and calls for no interference. I ConstitutiOn of (ndia, 1950: Article 14 - All persons E similarly placed to be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed - Equal Jaws to be applied ..- to all in the same situation without any discrimination - -~ Service law. Respondent joined the services of appellant as a - F work charge employees on 16.5.1963. He was regularized ~ as Head Mistry w.e.f 14.10.1981. He was a member of i Employees Provident Fund Scheme. He superannuated on 28.2.2001. The appellant computed respondent's pensionary benefits by taking into account only the G services rendered by him on regular basis and he was denied benefits of the services rendered by him w.e.f. 16.5.1963 to 13.10.1981 on work-charge basis. ~ The appellant had issued instructions dated 6.8.1993 H 710 .. • DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. v. 711 BACHAN SINGH whereby work charge employees were given three A months time to submit an option as to whether they intended to count the period of work charged service rendered towards pensionary benefits or intended to continue to be a member of EPF and in case of opting , for pensionary benefits, employee was required to refund B the entire amount of employee's contribution towards their EPF for crediting to GPF Account. The appellants issued another circular dated 9.8.1994 allowing the said " emplpyees who could not exercise their option in response to the circular dated 6.8.19-93 to opt for c pensionary benefits. After the retirement of respondent, appellant calculated his pension and retiral benefits w.e.f 14.10.1981 and not from 16.5.1963. According to appellants, the respondent did no exercise his option in response to the circulars. Aggrieved respondent filed writ 0 petition before High Court, which was allowed. Hence present appeals. ... Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The principle underlying the guarantee of E Article 14 of the Constitution is that all persons similarly placed ~hall be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation without any discrimination. [Para 20) [723-E-F] F 2. It would be totally unreasonable and irrational to deny the respondent the pensionary benefits under the scheme particularly when the appellants failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing by the G respondent. In the absence of any such material it can ..; "' well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants. The view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the H 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A impugned judgment is indeed a rational, just and fair view \( and no interference is called for. [Paras 26 and 27) [725- G-H; 726-A-B] Subrata Sen & Others v. Union of India & Others 2001(8) B SCC 71; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu &Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 3; Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248; D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305; Ajay Hasia & Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Others (1981) 1 sec 722, relied on. c Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab AIR 1988 (Punjab) 265 (FB), referred to. Case Law Reference : AIR 1988 (Punjab) 265 (FB) referred to Para 15 D 2001 (8) sec 11 relied on Para 18 w (1974) 4 sec 3 relied on Para 19 (1978) 1 sec 248 relied on Para 22 E (1983) 1 sec 305 relied on Para 23 (1981) 1 sec 122 relied on Para 24 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 4903 of 2009. F From the Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2005 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.