UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus D.R.R. SASTRI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 22-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
D.R.R. SASTRI 
NOVEMBER 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Pension-Liberalised Pension scheme-Option not communi-
cated-Representation after expiry of option date-Rejected-Relief granted to 
another employee-No special reasons indicated-Tribunal held that 
employee is entitled to exercise option-Held, No inteiference with the order 
of Tribunal wa"anted in the absence of any special feature for granting relief 
to any other employee-Hence the Respondent Employee not to be deprived 
of exercising option. 
The respondent, an employee of Indian Railways, went on deputation 
A 
B 
c 
D 
to the Heavy Engineving Corporation in the year 1972. While he was in 
Railways he had opted for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. He 
resigned from the Railways and was permanently absorbed in Heavy 
Engineering Corporation. Employees governed by the Provident Fund E 
Scheme were given opportunity to opt for the liberalised pension Scheme. 
The respondent was not informed about the scheme, and he made a 
representation requesting the Board to allow him to exercise the option. 
The Board rejected the request. The respondent approached. the Tribunal 
which held that respondent was entitled to exercise his potion. Aggrieved 
by the direction of the Tribunal, Railways preferred the present appeal. 
The contention of the appellant was that the respondent having not 
exercised his option for the pension scheme within the time specified in 
the Board's letter, the Tribunal erred in law in granting the relief. 
The contention of the respondent on the other hand was that the 
liberalised Pension Scheme having been introduced when he was an 
employee under the Railways, he was entitled to opt for the scheme. It was 
also contended that when similar opportunity having been given to another 
F 
G 
employee he cannot be denied to exercise the option. 
H 
151 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal took note of the fact that another employee 
was allowed to exercise the option long after the date of exercising of the 
option has expired and therefore, there should be no ground to discriminate 
the respondent. The appellant was not in a position to indicate any special 
reason why similar opportunity had been given to another employee. No 
affidavit was filed or material placed on record to indicate any distinguish-
ing feature granting opportunity to another employee. In the absence of any 
explanation from the appellant to indicate any special feature for granting 
similar relief to another employee, there is no justification for interfering 
C with the impugned direction of the Tribunal. [153-H; 154-A; 155-C] 
2. The Court had called upon the Railway administration to indicate 
whether the period of service rendered by the respondent under Railways 
was taken into account by the Heavy Engineering Corporation for fixing 
his pension on his retirement from the service of the Corporation and 
D whether proportionality of the period of service till the retirement are 
separated to compute the pension and if so computed whether respondent 
would stand to gain any higher pension than is being actually drawn. No 
affidavit was placed by the appellant. The responde'lf has filled an affidavit 
stating that he has not received any pension on his retirement from the 
E Corporation. [154-G-H; 155-A-B] 
F 
G 
3. The respondent, having served for about 22 years, should not be 
deprived of the pensionary benefit when the Government itself had come 
forward with the liberalised pension scheme and gave option to the persons 
already retired to come over to the pension scheme. [155-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14752 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.94 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 1711of1993. 
Y.P. Mahajan and Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Appellar,ts. 
T.C. Chingalvarajan, M.A. Krishna Murthy and Ms. Kokila Vani for 
the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
U.0.1.v. D.R.R.SAS1RI (PATIANAIK,J.] 
PAITANAIK, J. Leave granted. 
153 
This appeal by special leave as directed against the order of the 
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras dated 23rd September, 1994 in 
OA No. 711 of 1993. By the impugned order the Tribunal has directed the 
appellant to allow the respondent the· benefit of option for the pension 
scheme, on respondent refunding the

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