THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. versus BHAGWAN & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 129 · Decided: 10-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
129
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
v.
BHAGWAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7682-7684 of 2021)
JANUARY 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Pension: Claim for pensionary benefits by employees of
autonomous body (WALMI) – WALMI is an independent autonomous
body and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act –
The administration and management of the WALMI is through its
Governing Council – WALMI has its own Rules, namely, WALMI
Establishment Rules, 1980, governing the service conditions and
the benefits available to its employees – The Rules, 1980 provide
for the benefits of travelling allowance, daily allowance, medical
reimbursement, house rent allowance etc. however, do not provide
for pension – The Governing Council of WALMI also adopted the
Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except the Pension Rules – Thus,
WALMI is an independent autonomous entity governed by their own
Rules and Regulations and the administration and management of
WALMI is being run through/by its Governing Council – Even the
State is not the Disciplinary Authority of the employees of WALMI –
The Government by G.R. dated 08.11.2005 specifically took a policy
decision that the employees of aided institutes, boards, corporations,
are not entitled for grant of pensionary benefits and the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 shall not be made
applicable to such institutions – Even the proposal made by the
then Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to the
employees of WALMI was rejected by the State Government – Neither
G.R. dated 08.11.2005 nor the decision of the State Government
refusing to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI
was challenged – Therefore, as such a conscious policy decision
was taken not to adopt the Pension Rules for the WALMI employees
applicable to the State Government employees – In the said facts
and circumstances, High Court was not justified in directing the
State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI.
Pension: Claim for pensionary benefits by employees of
autonomous body – The employees of the autonomous bodies cannot
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 129
129
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the
Government employees – Merely because such autonomous bodies
might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the
Governing Council, there may be a representative of the Government
and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central
Government, the employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as
a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government
employees – This is more particularly, when the employees of such
autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and
service conditions – Pension.
Administrative law: Policy decision – Scope of interference
by courts – Held: Court should refrain from interfering with the
policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and have
financial implications – Whether to grant certain benefits to the
employees or not should be left to the expert body and the
undertakings and the Court cannot interfere lightly – Granting of
certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse
financial consequences.
Autonomous body – The observations made by the High Court
that as the salary and allowances payable to the employees of WALMI
are being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State and/or
that the WALMI is getting grant from the Government, there is no
justification to treat the employees of WALMI differently than that
of the State Government – Further, observations made by the High
Court that the amount available with WALMI and deposited with
E.P.F. towards the employee’s contribution itself is sufficient to meet
the financial liability of the pensionary benefits to the employees
and, therefore, there is no justification and/or reasonable basis for
the State Government to refuse to extend the benefit of pension to
the retired employees of WALMI – Held: These are all irrelevant
considerations, so far as extending the pensionary benefits to
employees of WALMI is concerned – WALMI has to run its
administration from its own financial resources – WALMI has no
financial powers of imposing any tax like a State and/or the Central
Government and WALMI has to depend upon the grants to be made
by the State Government – Further, merely because WALMI has a
fund with itself

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