HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR versus HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION RETIRED EMPLOYEES UNION

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 22-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
v.
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION RETIRED
EMPLOYEES UNION
(Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2012)
FEBRUARY 22, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Pension: Fixation of cut-off date for implementing pension
scheme – Whether discriminatory – Employees of the appellant
Corporation were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme – Appellant Corporation introduced Pension scheme in the
year 1995 – Cut-off date for implementation of pension date was
fixed as 5.6.1995 that is from the date on which Scheme was
approved by the Cabinet/Government – Plea of respondent-Union
that the fixation of cut-off date was arbitrary and discriminatory –
Held: Employees of the appellant-corporation who were governed
by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and retired prior to
5.6.1995 and the employees of the appellant Corporation, who were
in service and continued after 5.6.1995, cannot be treated as a
homogeneous class – Retired employees, who were governed by the
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, on their retirement had
already received the benefits of such Scheme, and constituted
different class than those employees who were in service as on
5.6.1995 – It is always open for the employer to introduce new
Schemes and benefits, having regard to financial health of the
employer – Whenever such new benefit is extended for the existing
employees, retired employees cannot seek such benefit, merely on
the ground that they too were the former employees of the
Corporation – When the members of the respondent-Union retired,
there was no Pension Scheme at all – They were merely governed
by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and, on retirement, they
were already granted the benefit of such Scheme – In that view of
the matter, retired employees cannot question the cut-off date fixed
for grant of Pension Scheme.
   [2021] 2 S.C.R. 104
104
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
105
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. All the members of the respondent-Union, while
in service, were governed by Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme. All those employees who retired before 05.06.1995,
were paid all retiral benefits, applicable to them. As the Pension
Scheme was not in existence during the relevant time, it was not
the case of violation of any service conditions either. The Pension
Scheme is introduced by way of notification dated 06.10.1995, by
giving effect from 05.06.1995, on which date the Cabinet has
approved the Scheme. The employees who were governed by
the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and retired prior to
05.06.1995 and the employees who were in service and continued
after 05.06.1995, of the appellant Corporation, cannot be treated
as a homogeneous class. The retired employees, who were
governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, on their
retirement had already received the benefits of such Scheme,
constitute different class than those employees who were in
service as on 05.06.1995. [Para 19][113-D-G]
State of Rajasthan and Another v. Amrit Lal Gandhi
and others (1997) 2 SCC 342 : [1997] 1 SCR 121 –
relied on.
Union of India and another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 323 : [1991] 3 SCR 873; Subrata
Sen and others v. Union of India and others (2001) 8
SCC 71 : [2001] (3) Suppl. SCR 140 – held
inapplicable.
D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC
305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; State of Punjab v. Amar Nath
Goyal (2005) 6 SCC 754 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 549;
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & others v. N. Subbarayudu
& others (2008)14 SCC 702 : [2008] 5 SCR 522; Suchet
Singh Yadav and others v. Union of India and others
(2019) 11 SCC 520; All Manipur Pensioners Association
by its Secretary v. The State of Manipur and others
(2019) 9 SCALE 282 : [2019] 9 SCR 905; R.L Marwaha
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. HIMACHAL ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPN. RETD.  EMPLOYEES UNION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
v. Union of India and others 1987(4) SCC 31: [1987]
3 SCR 928 –referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1987] 3 SCR 928
referred to
Para 15
[1991] 3 SCR 873
held inapplicable
Para 15
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 140
held inapplicable
Para 15
[1983] 2 SCR 165
referred to
Para 16
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 549
referred to
Para 16
[2008] 5 SCR 522
referred to
Para 17
(2019) 11 SCC 520
referred to
Para 18
[2019] 9 SCR 905
referred to
Para 18
[1997] 1 SCR 121
relied on
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7230
of 2012
Fr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.