STATE OF H.P. & ORS. versus RAJESH CHANDER SOOD ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2016] 6 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 28-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 6 S.C.R. 851 
STATE OF H.P. & ORS. 
v. 
RAJESH CHANDER SOOD ETC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9750-9819of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) 
Service law: 
Himachal Pradesh Government Corpora/e Sec/or E111ployees 
Pension (Fa111ily Pension, Co111mu1a1io11 of Pension and Gratuity) 
Scheme' 1999 - Pension scheme - Wilhdrawal of - Scheme of 1999 
not financially viable - Repeal of 1999 Scheme vide Notification 
dated 02.12.2004 - Legalily of - Held: Notification dated 2.12.2004 
is legal and constitulional - It cannot be said /hat the notification 
was unconstitutional, irrational, arbitrary or unreasonable - Scheme 
of 1999 created a contingent right in the employees of corporate 
bodies, who had opted for 'the 1999 Schenle ', i111111ediately on its 
having been introduced; all those, who were deemed to have opted; 
and all those appointed after the illlroduction of 'the 1999 Scheme' 
- There was no employer and employees relationship betlveen the 
State Government and employees -All the corporate bodies in which 
employees were/are engaged, are independent juristic entities - Thus, 
the claim raised by employees fm· pension, is not based on any 
right or obligation be/ween the parties - No right can· be stated to 
have been violated u/Arts. 14, 16, 21 and 300A - Further, the action 
of the State Government, was well within its authority and was based 
on due consideration - Repealing of the Scheme was a policy 
decision jailing in lhe realm of executive determinalion and 110 court 
has any role therein - Administrative law - Policy decision. 
Scheme of 1999 -
Cut-off date postulated by Slate 
Government, whereby some of the employees governed by 1999 
Scheme (/hose who had re/ired prior lo 2.12.2004) 11•ere entitled lo 
draw pension under the 1999 Scheme, whereas others, who had 
not retired by the time the repeal notification was issued on 
2.12.2004, were deprived of such benefits - Justification of - Held: 
Cut-off date has been upheld for extending better and higher 
851 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20f6] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
pensionary benefits, based on the financial health of the employer 
- Cut-off date can therefore, legitimately be prfi1·cribed for extending 
pensionary benefits, if the funds available cannot assuage the 
liability, to all the existing pensioners - Thus, it is well within the 
authority of the State Government, in exercise of its administrative 
B . powers, to fix a cut-off date, for continuing the right to receive 
pens.ion in some, and depriving some others. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Scheme of 1999 - Right to pension under, whether a vested 
right - Held: As soon as the concerned employees came to be 
governed by 'the 1999 Scheme', a contingent right came to be vested 
in them, on the date when 'the 1999 Scheme' became operational, 
or to the direct entrants who entered service thereafter - Said 
contingent right created a right in the employees to claim pension, 
at the time of their retirement - Said right :would crystalise only 
upon the fulfillment of the postulated conditions, on having rendered, 
the postulated qualijj;ing service - However, once such a contingent 
right was created, every such employee, could not be prevented 
from fulfilling the postulated conditions, to claim pension. 
Principle of estoppel/promissory estoppel - Applicability of 
- When original position (the rights enjoyed by the employees, under 
the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995) available before 'the 
1999 Scheme' was given effect to, has actually been restored - Held: 
Principle of estoppel/promissory estoppel is not applicable. 
Constitution of India - Art. 21 - 1999 Scheme, whether 
violative of Art. 21 - Held: Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 
1995, was sought to be replaced, by 'the 1999 Scheme'- 1999 
Scheme' was an effort at the behest of the State Government, to 
provide still better retiral benefits - 1999 Scheme' was not a measure, 
aimed at providing basic human rights - Thus, 'the 1999 Scheme' 
cannot be treated as irreversible - Repealing of 'the 1999 
Scheme 'cannot be deemed to have in any manner, violated the. right 
of the employees, u/Art. 21 - After the repeal notification dated 
2.12.2004, the erstwhile Scheme of 1995, has been restored to such 
of the employees, who were impacted by the said repeal notification. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. 'The 'Himachal Pradesh Government Corporate 
Sector Employees Pension (J<'amily

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