Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF ABSORBED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ARVIND VERMA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/1998
BENCH:
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, K. VENKATASWAMI, S. RAJENDRA BABU
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
K. Venkataswami,
This Court in a judgment dated 15.12.1995 in Welfare
Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in
Public Enterprises & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1996)
2 SCC 187], inter alia, held as follows:-
"From the above extracts, it will
be seen that a clear-cut
distinction is made in Rule 37-A
itself between one-third portion of
pension to be commuted without any
condition attached and two-third
portion of pension to be received
as terminal benefits with condition
attached and two-third portion of
pension to be received as terminal
benefits with condition attached
with it. It follows that so far as
commutation of one-third of the
pension is concerned, the
petitioners herein as well as
petitioners in "common Cause" stand
on similar footing with no
difference. So far as the balance
of two-third pension is concerned,
the petitioners herein have
received the commuted value
(terminal benefits ) on condition
of their surrendering of their
right of drawing two-thirds of
their pension. This was not the
case with the petitioners in
"Common Cause" case. That being the
position the denial of benefit
given to "common Cause" petitioners
to the present petitioners violates
Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. The reasoning for
restoring one-third commuted
pension in the case of "Common
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
Cause" petitioners equally applies
to the restoration of one-third
commuted pension in the case of
these petitioners as well.
...................................
...................
...................................
.......................
For the foregoing reasons, we hold
that the petitioners are entitled
to the benefits as given by this
Court in "Common Cause" case so far
as it related to restoration of
one-third of the commuted pension.
consequently, the impugned para 4
of Office Memorandum dated 5.3.1987
is quashed. The writ petitions are
accordingly allowed to the extent
indicated above, No costs."
As the respondents did not give effect to the judgment,
the petitioners, on an earlier occasion, moved this Court in
Contempt petition No. 310 of 1996, which was disposed o by
this Court on 7.10.1996 by passing the following order:-
" The counter has been filed
wherein it has been stated that the
directions of this Court are in the
process of being complied with.
The contempt Petition is disposed
of."
Thereafter, it appears that the respondents construing
the judgment of this Court literally restored one-third of
the commuted pension and denied all other attendant benefits
as made available to the other Central Government
pensioners. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have moved
this Court once again by filing this Contempt Petition.
Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General,
once again attempted to re-open the issue that the
petitioners cannot be treated at par with the Central
Government pensioners even though such a contention was
raised and negatived by this Court in the said judgment. For
the reasons already stated in the judgment, we hold that the
petitioners have to be treated at par with the Central
Government pensioners. When we directed the respondents to
restore the one-third portion of the commuted pension, it
was intended to be given effect to in letter and spirit,
which means that the restoration of pension must be with
attendant benefits as given to the Central Government
pensioners. The learned Additional Solicitor General brought
to our notice the statement in paragraph 15 of the
Additional Affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3,
which reads as follows:-
"In the case of PSU absorbees, they
have drawn lump sum capitalized
value for the 2/3rd portion of
pension as one time settlement.
This portion is therefore no longer
available to the absorbed employees
in the nature of pension and
according to the Supreme Judgment
dated 15.12.1995 the petitioners
have received the commuted value
(terminal benefits) on condition of
their surrendering their right of
drawing 2/3rds of their pension. In
view of this, the absorbed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
employees are not entitled to the
grant of dearness relief on this
2/3rd commuted portion of pension
(terminal benefits)."
It will be noticed that the Central Government
pensioners are given revision in the pension, which was not
given to the petitioners on the ground that this Court had
ordered only restoration of pension.
After hearing counsel on both sides, we make it clear
that the respondents are liable to restore not only the
pension as ordered by this Court in the said judgment, but
also all attendant benefits as given to the Central
Government pensioners. We hold that there was some genuine
doubt on they part of the respondents in construing and
giving effect to the judgment of this Court and, therefore,
there is no contempt. We now direct the respondents to
comply with the judgment of this Court as explained
hereinbefore within three months from this date.
The contempt petition will stand disposed of
accordingly.