TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD versus R. VEERASW AMY AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 26-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

---
.. 
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
R. VEERASW AMY AND ORS. 
MARCH 26, 1999 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR, K. VENKATASWAMI AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
" 
A 
B 
Electricity (SUf!PlY) Act, 1948-Section 79-Pension Scheme- C 
Prospective introductioh.-Respondents who had retired earlier governed 
by the contribu.tory provident fund-Cut-off date prescribed by the 
Employer Electricity Board-Validity of-Held-Board not acted contrary to 
law-Employees cannot-compel the Board to extend the pension scheme with 
retrospective ejfect-Cut~ojf date valid-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles D 
14 and 18 . 
The Government of Tamil Nadu, introduced a pension scheme vide 
GOMS No. 797 dated 30.6.1969. The appellant-Board had not adopted the 
Scheme till 1986. After getting some exemptions from Central Government, 
the appellant-Board, introduced the pension scheme on 26.6.1986 with E 
prospective effect w.e.f. 1.7.1986. The retired employees--respondents who 
were governed by the contributory provident fund scheme, questioned the 
Board's proceedings before High Court. Single Judge found the cut-off date 
fixed as 1.7.1986 was neither arbitrary nor offending Article 14 of the 
Constitution of India and dismissed the Writ Petition. But Division Bench 
held that the Respondents were entitled to the benefit of the pension scheme, F 
though they had retired long before the introduction of the pension scheme, 
mainly on the ground of delay on the part of the appellate-Board in bringing 
into existence the pension scheme. Hence these appeals. 
The Common issue before this Court was whether the employees- G 
respondents who had retired before 1-7-1986 after receiving all retrial 
benefits available to them as per the law existing on the dates of their 
retirement, can compel the appellant-Board to extend the benefit of the newly 
introduced pension scheme with retrospective effect. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
221 
H 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. The appellant-Board has not acted illegally or contrary to 
law in introducing pension scheme prospectively from 1.7.1986. The 
employees respondents who retired before 1.7.1986 cannot compel the 
appellant-Board to extend the benefit of pension scheme with retrospective 
effect. [229-D] 
B 
1.2 The High Court erroneously granted relief on the alleged delay on 
the part of the appellant-Board in introducing the pension scheme which 
certainly cannot be a ground for the court to give retrospective effect to the 
pension scheme. Moreover, the appellant-Board had given well founded 
reasons for introducing the pension scheme from 1.7.1986. Respondents 
C who had retired from service before 1.7.1986 and those who were in 
employment on the said date, cannot be treated alike as they do not belong 
to one class. Respondents who .had retired after receiving all the benefits 
available under the contributory provident fund scheme cease to be employees 
of the appellant-Board from tile Date of their retirement They form a separate 
class. [229-C] 
V. Kasturi v. MD. State Bank of India, [1998) 8 SCC 30 and Union 
Bank of India v. Lieut E. Inacts, [1997) 7 SCC 334, relied on. 
Hari Ram thr. Lr. Kasturi Devi v. State of UP., [1998] 6 SCC 328; All 
India PNB Retired Officers Ass v. Union of India, [1992) Supp 1 SCC 664 
E and Indian Bank v. K. Usha & another, [1998] i' SCC 663, distinguished. 
D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 1 SCC 305, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1721-1725 
F of 1999. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .11.97 of the Madras High Court 
in W.A. No. 523-27of1995. 
R. Mohan, M.A. Krishna Moorthy and R. Nedumaran for the Appellant 
N.G.R. Prasad and S.R. Setia for the Respondents Nos. 1,2,4 and 5. 
K.V. Viswanathan and K.V. Venkataraman for the impleading party. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
K. VENKA TASWAMI, J. Leave granted. 
-
--
,.._ 
·-
T.N.E.B. v. R. VEERASWAMY [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 
223 
The law on the common issue that arises for decision in these cases is A 
well settled and, therefore, we do not propose to write a detailed judgment. 
The common issue that arises in all these cases can be broadly stated as 
follows:-
"Whether the appellant-Board has acted illegally or contrary to law 
in introducing a pension scheme to the employees, who were hitherto B 
not governed by such pension scheme, prospectively from I. 7.1986. 
To put it differently, whether the employees (respondent

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