LexT.S. THIRUVENGADAM versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, NEW DELHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D T.S. THIRUVENGADAM v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, NEW DELHI AND ORS. FEBRUARY 17, 1993 [KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] Civil Services: Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 :Retiremcm benefit:.- Govt. sel'\!a1tts absorbed in public sector U11dertaking:.-Govemme11t of /11dia Memorandum dated 16.'6.1967-R.evised Tenns a11d Co11ditio11s--Made ap- plicable to those who retired after the issue of Memora11durn-Validity of Co11stitutio11 of India, 1950. Articles 14 and l6-il.etireme11t be11efits to Govt. sel'\!ants absorbed i11 Public Sector U11dertaki11g:.-Govemme11t of India-Memorandum dared 16.6.1967-Tenns and Conditions revised-Made applicable from date of E issue of the Memorandunt-Reasonableness of the classificatio11--Cut-off date-Wliether arbitrary and discriminatory. The appellant was serving the Audit Department of the Government of India. He was sent on foreign service to the Public Sector Undertaking Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (N.L.C.) and was absorbed there. Before F joining N.L.C. he had already completed 15 years of pensionable govern- ment service. Retirement benefits in such cases were regulated by Memorandum dated November 10, 1960 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), Ne·N Delhi. According to the said Memoran· dum the retirement benefits for service rendered by a government servant before his absorption in a public undertaking were admissible equal to G what the government would have contributed had the individual been on contributory provident fund terms, with 2% simple interest thereon. The Government of India subsequently issued Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 J>rOviding revised terms and conditions of absorption in Central Public Sector Undertakings but restricted the revised benefits only to H those who were absorbed on or after June 16, 1967. The appellant retired 1078 y T.S. TIURUVENGft.DAM v. SECRETARY 1079 from the public undertaking and was paid a sum of Rs. 3036 as retirement A . ""' benefits in terms of the Memorandum dated November 10, 1960. The benefit of the revised terms and conditions of absorption as contained in the government Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 was denied to the appellant on the ground that he was absorbed in the public undertaking prior to the date of coming into force of the said Memorandum. The appellant challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court. Subsei111ently, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal which ~ejected the claim of the appellant. Being aggrieved against the Tribunal's judgment, the appellant preferred the present appeal. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that it was not open to the government to deny the benefit of the 1967 Memorandum to those employees who were absorbed prior to the date of the Memorandum as it would be arbitrary and that such classification is violative of Articles 14 'K and 16 of the Constitution. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the revised retirement benefits were introduced to attract more and more go\·ernment servants for permanent absorption in government undertakings to build B c D up their cadres, and this being a new incentive, it has been given effect to from the date of issue of orders and there was nothing arbitrary or E discriminatory in fixing the cut-off date. ~llowing the appeal, this Court, HELD : 1.1. The object of bringing into existence the revised terms and conditions in the Memorandum dated June, 16, 1967 was to protect F the pensionary benefits which the Central Government servants had earned before their absorption into the public undertakings. Restricting the applicability of the revised Memorandum only to those who are ab- sorbed after the coming into force of the said Memorandum, would be defeating the very object and purpose of the revised Memorandum. The appellant along \\ith other Central Government employees was sent on foreign service to the public undertaking in the year 1961. He was ab- G ~ sorbed in the year 1964. All those who joined foreign service alongwith the appellant but were absorbed after June 16, 1967 have been given the benefits under the revised Memorandum. Denying the same to the appel- Jant would be contrary to f'airplay and justice. Assuming that the revised H "'I 1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R. A Memorandum
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.