Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DAILYLAW 1829 (DEL)

H. S. REKHI v. O. N. S. C.

2001-09-21

Mukundakam Sharma

body2001
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ( 1 ). This writ petition is Filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to implement the provisions of Self contributory Post Retirement and Death in Service benefit Scheme, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as scheme) circulated on 29/4/1990 even; to the employees who had retired from service between 1/4/1990 to 1/4/1991. ( 2 ). The petitioner joined the employment, of respondent. No. 1 in the month of July, 1995 and he retired on 31/8/1990 on attaining the age of superannuation. While the petitioner was An service, a scheme, called Self Contributory Post. Retirement and Death in Service was circulated under circular dt. 29/4/1990. A copy of the came is placed on record. When t. he aforesaid scheme was circulated in 1990, objections were raised as against, the aforesaid scheme by a section of the improving the scheme. After receipt, of the carried out and the scheme was thereafter finalised and a memorandum of understanding was arrived at. Pursuant to the same, an amended scheme was prepared and thereafter the same was sent. for approval of the Central Government. under letter of the respondent No. 1 dt. ,3/4/1991 as is retired under the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 32 of the o. N. G. C. Act. . In section 15 of the said Act. , amongst, others, it, is provided that the implementation of any scheme or proposal which would involve a capital expenditure exceeding such amount has been prescribed, exceeding fifty lakhs of rupees, shall be done by the Commission after obtaining previous approval of the Central government,. The aforesaid scheme, which was sent to the Central Government for obtaining its approval was approved by the Central Government under its letter dt. 18/9/1991 subject to certain conditions. A copy of the said letter dt. 18/9/1991 is also placed on record. It would be disclosed from the said letter that the two conditions imposed by the Central Government were as follows: - THE scheme may be given effect from 1/4/1990 subject to the condition that all employees who retired between 1/4/1990 to 1/4/1991 would be excluded from the scheme. Only service rendered in ONGC would be taken into account for determining the eligibility for panion and no service rendered in either Govt. or another Public sector Under taking before absorption in ONGC would count as qualifying service. ( 3 ). Only service rendered in ONGC would be taken into account for determining the eligibility for panion and no service rendered in either Govt. or another Public sector Under taking before absorption in ONGC would count as qualifying service. ( 3 ). In view of the aforesaid approval, with the aforesaid conditions, the approved scheme was circulated under Circular dated 2/1/1992 making it clear" therein that the employees who retired between 1/4/1990 to 1/4/1991 stand excluded from the benefits of the said scheme and that they would not be able to become member of the said scheme. The said scheme with the aforesaid conditions imposed by the Central Government was implemented. After implementation of the said scheme certain grievances were raised by some of the employees and accordingly the respondent No. 1 requested the central Government to drop the condition of excluding the employees who had retired between 1/4/1990 to 1/4/1991. The said request, was sent by respondent No. 1 to the Central Government under letter dt. 19/10/1992. The Central Government, however, did not agree to change the aforesaid condition. Therefore, although the petitioner exercised his option to come within the ambit of the aforesaid scheme yet in view of the aforesaid condition in the scheme, he way ineligible for getting membership of the said scheme as per the approved scheme circulated under letter dt. 2/1/1992 and, therefore the present petition is filed seeking for the aforesaid relief. ( 4 ). Counsel appear ing for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that there is no intelligible criteria in excluding the employees who retired during the period 1/4/1990 to 1/4/1991 from the ambit of the aforesaid circular and to deprive them from the benefit of the schemei which has resulted in ex Facie discrimination and, therefore, the scheme is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) IT was also submitted by him that the respondent No. 1 subsequently issued circular dated 24/3/1992 making the provisions of the said scheme applicable to the cases of members who retired voluntarily, compulsorily, prematurely on medical and death/parmanent disabiement and therefore respect of the aforesaid persons also the scheme was made applicable, there is no reasonable ground for excluding the petitioner, who retired in between the period from 1/4/1990 to 1/4/1991, as a measure of superannuation under the rules, from the purview of the said scheme. approved by the Central Governement excluded the case of the petitioner, he cannot avail of and claim the said benefit and although the petitioner had exercised his option yet his option became ineffective as he was ineligible for getting membership of Lhe said scheme as per circular dated 2/1/1992. ( 6 ). In the light of Lhe aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties I have perused the records of Lhe case. My attention was also drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in o. N. G. C. VS. G. S. CHUGANI and OTHERS In Civil Appeal no. 3635 of 1998 disposed of on 31/7/1998. A careful perusa1 of the said decision rendered by the supreme Court makes it crystal clear that the issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. In the said decision, the same scheme, which is assailed now was also the subject matter of the case before the Supreme Court. In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that the benefits of the emp1oyees can on1y be governed by the final scheme as approved by the Central government. It was also held in the said decision that in the letter of approval dt. 18/9/1991, the ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has directed that the scheme as finally approved should be made effective from 1/4/90 subject to the condition that all employees, who retired between 1/4/1990 and 1/4/1991 would be excluded from the scheme and, therefore, only a person who retired from service thereafter would yet the benefit of the scheme. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is applicable in full force to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is applicable in full force to the facts and circumstances of the present case. When the scheme has envisaged that benefit of the same would not be available to the persons retired in between 1/4/1990 to 1/4/1991 and the said scheme was approved by the Centr ai government with the aforesaid condition in accordance with the provisions of the O. N. G. C. Act, an employes retired between the aforesaid period stands excluded from the said scheme. ( 7 ). So far the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in respect to notification dt. 24/3/1992 is concerned, the same was brought, into the records by filing an additional affidavit. As because the Board of trustees of the O. N. G. C. had decided that certain class of persons, who retired voluntarily, compulsorily, pramaturely on medical grounds or as a Manure of punishment and death/permamnent disablement, would get the benefit, of the said patiitioner to get the said benefits provided under the said scheme. The scheme is approved by the central Government, and the same is binding so long law. The validity of the present Scheme was upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision of o. N. G. C. Ltd. vs. G. S. Chugani (supra) and it was made clear in the said decision that the same would not, be applicable to the persons retired within the aforesaid period of 1/4/1990 to 1/4/1991. It is also the the settled law that even if one wrong is committed by the respondent, the same cannot not be allowed to be perpetuated in another in another case. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and the petition stands dismissed.