S. Amrithanathan And 22 Ors vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd And 3 Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM020114022017
2026:BHC-OS:23761-DB
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
Kavita S.J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1448 OF 2017
S. Amrithanathan & Ors., …Petitioners
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors., …Respondents
----------
Mr. K. P. Anilkumar i/b Priyanaka Kumar for Petitioners.
Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Lancy D’souza and Ms.
Deepika Agarwal i/b V. M. Parkar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Vinit Jain a/w Mr. Gaurav Mhatre for Respondent No. 4.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 18 SEPTEMBER, 2026.
rd
PRONOUNCED ON : 3 NOVEMBER, 2026.
JUDGMENT: (Per R.I. Chagla, J.)
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have sought a
direction to the Respondents to extend the benefits of the ESSO
KAVITA
SUSHIL
JADHAV
Pension Scheme, claiming their entitlement thereto pursuant to
accrual slips issued to the Petitioners. They have sought
Digitally signed
by KAVITA
SUSHIL JADHAV
Date: 2026.11.03
16:42:06 +0530
1/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
implementation of the Judgment of this Court in the matter of
Pensioners Social and Welfare Association Vs. Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (WP No. 163 of 2018) and for a direction to the
Respondents to utilize the appropriate formula for calculation of
Pension benefits as affirmed by this Court in the said decision.
2. The Petitioners are retired employees of Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai Refining and LUBE Refining.
Respondent No. 1 is Hindustan Corporation Limited and Respondents
2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Director HR, respectively, of
Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 4 is the Union of India through
the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Gas.
3. The Petitioners had joined Respondent No. 1 on various
dates from 15 July 1974 to 14 January 1978. It is pertinent to note
that prior to the present Petitioners joining Respondent No. 1, the
ESSO Refining Limited (“ESSO”) had been acquired by the
Government of India under “The ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings
in India) Act, 1974” including LUBE India and ESSO Standard
th
Refining Co. of India Ltd. on 12 March 1974 and 15 July, 1974
respectively. After nationalization and amalgamation, these
2/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
companies were renamed as “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited”, (Respondent No. 1).
4. The Petitioners, after joining the services of Respondent
No. 1 on various dates and in various posts, had been paid wages and
other benefits which the Petitioners claim were also paid to
employees of ESSO Eastern Inc. The service conditions of the
employees of ESSO were also continued and made applicable to
them.
5. On 11 August 1980, a settlement was arrived at between
Respondent No. 1 and the Employees Union. As per the settlement,
which was signed under Section 2(p), read with Section 18(1), of the
Industrial Disputes Act, the Gratuity Policy and Pension benefits of
erstwhile ESSO were made applicable to the employees who had
joined before 29 January 1976 in Fuels Refining and 14 January
1978 in LUBE Refining.
6. On 12 April 1983, another settlement was arrived at
between Respondent No. 1 and the Employees Union, wherein it was
specifically agreed that the clauses of the earlier settlement will be
3/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
continued and not altered.
7. The Petitioners claim that accrual slips had been issued
to them by the Respondents in respect of Pension balances of every
year which confirm that the Pension Scheme of the erstwhile ESSO
would be applicable to the Petitioners. The Petitioners are aggrieved
by the denial of Pension to them as per ESSO Pension policy after
their retirement. They claim that the Respondents had forced upon
them Superannuation Pension Scheme signed in 1989 and
implemented from 1988.
8. The Petitioners have relied upon the Judgment of this
rd
Court dated 3 May 2019 in Writ Petition No. 163 of 2018, in which
it was held that the Petitioners therein who were employed between
15 July 1974 to 1st May 1975, were entitled to Pension as per the
ESSO Pension Scheme. Further, it was declared by this Court that all
retired employees / Petitioners therein are entitled to computation of
Pension at the rate of Pension accruals without any deductions. The
present Petitioners claim to be discriminated from other employees
who were Petitioners in the aforesaid Petition and who had been
granted the relief by this Court. They have sought implementation of
4/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
the Judgment in their favor.
9. The Petitioners have been making representations
requesting for Pension as per the ESSO Pension Scheme, and one
such representation had been made on 14 March 2017. There had
been no response to the representation and accordingly the
Petitioners were left with no other alternative than to approach this
Court.
10. It is pertinent to note that subsequent to the filing of the
th
present Petition, the Supreme Court vide its Order dated 19
November, 2024, in Special Leave Petition filed by Respondent No. 1,
dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground that a part of the
Pensionary benefit which had been extended to 269 employees of
Respondent No. 1 under the ESSO Pension Scheme, had been
withdrawn, admittedly, without following the principles of natural
justice and without giving these employees an opportunity of being
heard. Further, that it was too late in the day for the Petitioners to be
given an opportunity of being heard. It was made clear by the
Supreme Court that the view taken remains confined to the said 269
retired employees.
5/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
11. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, has submitted that the present Petitioners would be
covered by the Judgment of this Court dated 3 May 2019 which had
been pressed in respect of similarly placed employees of Respondent
No. 1 and who have upon their retirement been given the benefit of
the ESSO Pension Scheme.
12. Mr. Anil Kumar has submitted that there is a clear case of
discrimination between two sets of employees who have retired from
the service of Respondent No. 1, and that the attempt on the part of
the Respondents to deny Pensionary benefits to the Petitioners on the
ground that they joined after 15 July 1974 is fallacious in light of the
settlements arrived at between the Respondent No. 1 and the
Employees Union on 11 August 1980 and thereafter on 12 April
1983.
13. Mr. Anil Kumar has submitted that the Petitioners have
been discriminated against by the Respondents in not granting them
the Pensionary benefits upon their retirement under the ESSO
Pension Scheme and thereby violating their fundamental rights under
Article 14 of the Constitution. He has submitted that Pension being
6/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
part of Petitioners' livelihood, denial thereof amounts to violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
14. Mr. Anil Kumar has also referred to Clause 7 of the
appointment letters which had extended the benefit of the ESSO
Pension Scheme to the Petitioners and other similarly situated
employees of Respondent No. 1. He has also placed reliance upon the
accrual slips which have been issued to the Petitioners and which
extended the benefits of the ESSO Pension Plan to them.
15. Mr. Anil Kumar has submitted that the Respondent No. 1
has denied extending the benefits of the ESSO Pension Scheme to the
Petitioners on the ground that they had joined as employees of
Respondent No. 1 and not as legacy employees of ESSO and LUBE
India Limited. Such ground for denial of the ESSO Pension Scheme
would run contrary to the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.
163 of 2018 which has been upheld by the Supreme Court by
rejection of the Special Leave Petitions. He has accordingly sought for
the Petition to be allowed and for the Respondents to be directed to
extend the benefits of the ESSO Pension Scheme to the Petitioners.
7/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
16. Mr. D'Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondents, has submitted that the Petitioners who were
superannuated after the introduction of the contributory
superannuation benefit fund scheme with effect from 1st January
2007, were receiving Pensionary benefits under the original
Superannuation Benefits Fund Scheme from 1988 to 2006 as well as
the revised scheme from 1st January 2007. The Petitioners, in
addition, are in receipt of Pension under the Employees Pension
Scheme 1995.
17. Mr. D'Souza has submitted that from the settlement
dated 11 August 1980 between Respondent No. 1 and the Employees
Union, it is apparent that the ESSO Pension Scheme was not
applicable to the Petitioners as they were demanding a Pension
Scheme as no Pension Scheme had been introduced for the
employees after Respondent No. 1 was formed in the public sector.
He has submitted that from the subsequent Settlements i.e.
th th
Settlements dated 11 January 1989 and 12 July 1989, which had
introduced the Respondent No.1 Employees Superannuation Benefits
th
Funds Scheme with effect from 30 May 1988, it is evident that it
was an accepted position that the ESSO Pension Plan does not apply
8/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
to the Petitioners.
18. Mr. D'Souza has submitted that the ESSO Pension Plan is
a legacy Pension Plan which applies only to the employees of
erstwhile ESSO who became employees of ESSO Standard Refining
Company of India Limited, pursuant to the acquisition and takeover
in the year 1974. Such employees joined the new company on the
same terms and conditions of service as applicable to them in ESSO.
19. Mr. D’souza has submitted that the Petitioners had been
recruited after formation of Respondent No. 1 and were not legacy
employees of ESSO or LUBE India Limited. He has submitted that the
appointment letters of the Petitioners, which were issued by
Respondent No. 1, had no reference to the benefit of any Pension
Plan, much less to ESSO Pension Plan.
20. Mr. D’souza has submitted that the Petitioners in
Paragraph 8A of the Petition have stated that the employees who
retired after 1974 from Respondent No. 1 and had initially joined
ESSO were getting Pensionary benefits as per the ESSO Pension Plan.
He has submitted that in Paragraph 17 of the Petition, the Petitioners
9/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
have stated that they derived their right for Pension in accordance
with the settlements drawn between the Employees' Union and
Respondent No. 1. None of these settlements apply the ESSO Pension
Plan to the Petitioners.
21. Mr. D’souza has submitted that considering that the
Petitioners have claimed their entitlement for the ESSO Pension Plan
under Clauses 16(1) and (2) of the settlement dated 11th December
1980, they ought to raise an industrial dispute under Section 2 (k) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and cannot pursue a demand of
non-implementation of settlement by invoking the writ jurisdiction of
this Court.
22. Mr. D’souza has submitted that non-implementation of
the settlement involves disputed questions of fact which can be
adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal. The Petitioners' claim of non-
implementation of settlement dated 11th August 1980 is a ground for
dismissal of the Petition due to delay and laches of 37 years.
23. Mr. D’souza has submitted that the Judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition No. 163 of 2018 is distinguishable on facts and
10/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
is confined to the Petitioners therein. Special Leave Petitions
preferred by Respondent No.1 from the said Judgment have been
rejected by the Supreme Court by its Order dated 19th November
2024. The Supreme Court made its view clear viz. that Pensionary
benefits which had been extended erroneously to the employees who
had been recruited by Respondent No. 1 after 15th July 1974 had
been admittedly withdrawn without following the principles of
natural justice and without affording the concerned employees an
opportunity of being heard. Further, that at this stage it was too late
in the day to direct the answering Respondent to afford such an
opportunity of hearing. This was confined to the 269 retired
employees who were before the Court.
24. Mr. D’souza has submitted that the aforesaid decision has
no application to the case of the present Petitioners. The factual and
legal foundation of the said proceedings are materially different, in as
much as the Pensionary benefits in question had, in fact, been
extended erroneously to the concerned employees and were
subsequently withdrawn. He has submitted that in the case of the
present Petitioners, no such Pensionary benefits under the ESSO
Pension Plan were ever extended to the Petitioners in the first place.
11/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
He has accordingly submitted that the observations made by the
Supreme Court in the said decision cannot be mechanically applied
or extended to the present case.
25. Mr. D’souza has submitted that the Petitioners who have
at no point of time been extended the ESSO Pension Plan, cannot
now seek to extend the same and accordingly the present Petition
deserves dismissal.
26. Having considered the submissions, we are of the view
that the present Petitioners cannot be said to be similarly placed as
the Petitioners who had filed Writ Petition No. 163 of 2018 before
this Court. Those Petitioners had been erroneously extended the
Pensionary benefits under the ESSO Pension Plan, which had
thereafter been admittedly withdrawn, and which withdrawal has
been held by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (SLP)
Nos. 5228-5229 of 2020 preferred from the Judgment of this Court
dated 3rd May 2019 to be without following the principles of natural
justice and without affording the concerned employees an
opportunity of being heard.
12/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
27. It has been made clear by the Supreme Court in the
Special Leave Petitions that the view taken is confined only to the
269 retired employees in the matter. We find much merit in the
submission on behalf of Respondent No. 1 that the said decision has
no application in the present case, as the factual and legal foundation
of those proceedings are materially different, in as much as the
Pensionary benefits in question had, in fact, been extended
erroneously to those employees and were subsequently withdrawn,
whereas in the present case, no Pensionary benefits under the ESSO
Pension Plan have ever been extended to the Petitioners. Thus, the
observations made by the Supreme Court in the said proceedings
cannot be mechanically applied or extended to the present case.
28. It is pertinent to note that the present Petitioners have
been conferred Pensionary benefits under the original Self-
Contributory Superannuation Scheme titled "Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund
Scheme," (SBFS) from 1988 to 2006 as well as been conferred
benefits under the Contributory Superannuation Benefit Fund
Scheme from 1st January 2007. The Petitioners are also in receipt of
Pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995.
13/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
29. From a perusal of the Settlement dated 11th August
1980 entered into between Respondent No.1 and the Employees'
Union, it is apparent that there is an admission of the fact that the
ESSO Pension Scheme was not applicable to the Petitioners, as there
was no Pension Scheme introduced for employees such as the
Petitioners after Respondent No. 1 had been formed in the public
sector. The Petitioners have joined Respondent No.1 on various dates
th th
from 15 July 1974 to 14 January 1978, whereas ESSO had been
nationalized by that date and along with LUBE India Ltd. and ESSO
Standard Refining Co. of India Ltd. renamed as Respondent No. 1.
30. We also find merit in the submission on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 that the ESSO Pension Plan is a legacy Pension
Plan which applies only to the employees of ESSO who became
employees of ESSO Standard Refining Co. of India Ltd. after the
takeover, as such employees joined the Company on the same terms
and conditions of service as applicable to them in ESSO. Thus, the
employees of ESSO were continued under the ESSO Pension Plan,
and the employees of LUBE India Limited were continued under the
Pension Plan of LUBE India Limited after the takeover of ESSO by the
Central Government under the ESSO Acquisition of Undertakings Act,
14/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
1974, and they had been renamed as Respondent No. 1.
31. The Petitioners, being recruited after the formation of
Respondent No. 1, are not legacy employees of ESSO and accordingly
they are not entitled to be extended the benefit of the ESSO Pension
Plan.
32. Further, it is apparent from the definition of ‘eligible
employees’ in the ESSO Pension Plan that it is only those regular
employees who were members of the permanent residence staff of
ESSO and who were engaged in service on and after the effective
date of the ESSO Pension Plan, are eligible to the benefits as provided
in the plan upon retirement. This cannot apply to the present
Petitioners who joined as employees of Respondent No.1 and who
were never in the service of ESSO prior to its takeover by the
Government of India under the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in
India) Act, 1974.
33. The Petitioners have placed reliance upon Clause 16(1)
and (2) of settlement dated 11th December 1980, in contending that
they are entitled for ESSO Pension Plan. Interpretation of these
15/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
RJ-WP 1448.2017.doc
Clauses would be by raising of an industrial dispute under Section 2
(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by invoking writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
34. Further, we find merit in the contention on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioners are claiming non-
implementation of Settlement dated 11th August 1980 after delay
and laches of 37 years, and accordingly the Petition is required to be
dismissed on this ground.
35. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present Petition
which is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
16/16
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:02:32
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)