LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M. K. SARKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 249 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. K. SARKAR (Civil Appeal No. 8151 of 2009) DECEMBER 8, 2009 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.) Delay and /aches: A B Provident fund retiree who failed to exercise option to shift c to the pension scheme within the stipulated time cannot exercise the option, after the expiry of validity period for the option scheme, that too after 22 years - Service law. Claims which are stale or time barred - Cause of action - Issue of limitation or delay should be considered with D reference to the original cause of action and not with reference ·'\ . to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction - Court/Tribunal, before directing 'consideration' of a claim or representation should examine whether it is with reference to a 'live' issue or a 'dead' or 'stale' E issue - If it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'state' issue or dispute, courtflribunal should put an end to the matter and "-• not direct consideration or reconsideration - Cause of action. Notice: When a statute uses word 'notice' it must be presumed to mean not only a formal intimation but also an informal one - Similarly, service of notice would include constructive or informal notice. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 Equality clause must be enforced in legality and not illegality - Claim on the basis of equality, by reference to F G 249 H 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A someone similarly placed, is permissible only when person similarly placed was lawfully granted a relief and the person r ... claiming relief is also lawfully entitled for the same - However, where benefit was illegally extended to someone else, person who is not extended a similar illegal benefit cannot approach B a court for extension of a similar illegal benefit - Equity - Service law. Respondent joined railway service on 10.2.1947. Railways introduced a pension scheme on 16.11.1957. ,.) c The scheme gave option to switch over to a pension scheme instead of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The validity period for exercise of option was extended from time to time upto 31.12.1978. Under the terms of the option, a retired railway employee who opted for the D pension scheme had to refund the government contributions to the provident fund. The respondent though aware of the scheme and the "' • options given on eight occasions between the years 1957 to 1974, consciously did not opt for the pension E scheme and continued with the CPF Scheme. Ultimately he took voluntary retirement with effect from 15.10.1976. More than 22 years after his retirement and after receiving his dues under the Provident Fund Scheme, respondent made a representation dated 8.10.1998, requesting F extension of benefit of the pension scheme. It was _. reject~d. He approached CAT. The Tribunal by order dated 11.2.2004 disposed of the application directing the appellants to take a decision on the representation of the respondent by a reasoned order, making it clear that it l '1\' G did not examine the claim on merits. The authority .;. •; rejected the belated request of respondent. Respondent filed second application before Tribunal. Railways remained unrepresented and did not contest . ,,, the claim. Tribunal by order dated 25.7.2005 allowed his H application and directed the appellants to permit UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. K. SARKAR 251 respondent to opt for pension scheme. Appellant filed A writ petition before High Court, which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. / ~· Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. When a scheme extending benefit of option B for switchover, stipulates that the benefit would be available only to those who exercise the option within a -. specified time, the option should obviously be exercised within such time. The option scheme made it clear that no option could be exercised after the last date. In this c case, respondent chose not to exercise the option and continued to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, and also received the entire PF amount on his retirement. He was the head of his department. All communications relating to the offer of Eighth Option and D I several communications extending the validity period for exercising the option for pension scheme, were sent to the heads of the departments for being circulated to all eligible employees/retired em
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.