LexT.M. SAMPATH & ORS. versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015} 1 S.C.R. 748 T.M. SAMPATH & ORS. v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 712-713 of 2015) JANUARY 20, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE, VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Service Law: Pension - Entitlement - To the employees of an autonomous body under the Ministry of Central Government and to the employees of school, registered under Societies 0 Registration Act - Office Memorandum (O.M) dated 1.05.1986 issued by the Central Government providing for change-over of employees from Contributory Provident Fund scheme to Pension Scheme - Claim of the employees of the autonomous body and of the school for change-over to the E pension scheme on parity with Central Government employees - The school empl9yees a/so challenged New Pension Scheme (NPS) - Held. The autonomous body had framed its own CPF Rules in 1982, therefore, the OM. Applicable to the Central Government employees was not applicable to them - The autonomous body cannot be treated F as instrumentality of the State u!Art. 12 of the Constitution, merely on the basis that its funds were granted by the Central Government - The employees a/so failed to prove their parity with Central Government employees - Discrimination cannot be invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be shown G is between the acts of two different authorities - The O.M. is a/so not applicable to the employees of the school - The school employees have also failed to prove any arbitrariness and discrimination with respect to the NPS - No interference H 748 TM. SAMPATH v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER 749 RESOURCES is warranted unless gross injustice is perpetrated - A Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 12, 14 and 16 - Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 - New Pension Scheme, 2004. Dismissing the appeals and the petitions, the Court 8 HELD: CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 712-713 OF 2014 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 714-715 OF 2014 c 1. National Water Development Agency (NWDA) had framed its regulation the Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1982 (CPF Rules) and they were duly approved by the Governing Body of NWDA~ As NWDA. is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Water 0 Resources, it has framed it own bye-laws governing the employees. The Court must adopt an attitude of total non- interference or minimal interference in the matter of interpretation of Rules framed by autonomous institutions. Thus, by reason that the employees are governed by NWDA CPF Rules, 1982, the O.M. dated 01.05.1987 is not applicable to the appellant-employees. [Paras 14 and 17] [767-B-C, G] E Chairman & MD, Kera/a SRTC vs. K. 0. Varghese and Ors. 2007 (8) SCR 164 = (2007) 8 sec 231 - relied on. F 2. The plea of the employees of NWDA to be treated at par with their counterparts in Central Government under sub rule (6)(iv) of Rule 2009 of General Financial Rules, merely on the basis of funding, is not applicable. Even if it G is assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist or were not applicable on the date of the O.M. i.e. 01.05.1987 which is the relevant date of parity, the principle of parity cannot be applicable to the employees of NWDA. NWDA cannot be treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution merely on the basis that its funds H 750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R A are granted by the Central Government. The autonomous bodies having some nexus with the Government by itself would not bring them within the sweep of the expression 'State' and each case m"'ust be determined on its own B merits. [Paras 15 and 17] [768-B, F] Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2005 (1) SCR 913 =(2005) 4 sec 649 - relied on. 3. Even if it is presumed that NWDA is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, the appellants have failed C to prove that they are at par with their counterparts, with whom they claim parity. The claim to equality can be claimed when there is discrimination by the State between two persons who are similarly situated. The said discrimination cannot be invoked in cases where D discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two different authorities functioning as State under Article 12. Thus, the employees of NWDA cannot be said to be 'Central Government Employees' as stated in the O.M. for E its applicability. [Para 16] [768-C-E] Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Krishan Bhandari 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR270 = (1996) 11 sec 348
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.