No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSB No.371 of 2015 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Late Mahabir Prasad Siroha (husband of the petitioner) was appointed in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited in the year 1982 and in the year 2008 he was deputed to Directorate General of Hydro-carbons, Noida. He retired on 31.05.2013 as Chief Manager upon attaining age of superannuation and passed away within less than five months of his retirement on 08.10.2013. 4. Widow of Late Mahabir Prasad Siroha has filed this writ petition seeking direction to ONGC to grant compensation of ₹50 lakhs along with 12% interest under the Composite Social Security Scheme framed under ONGC CMD Rules, 2011. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner’s husband was diagnosed with brain cancer and he underwent brain surgery on 18.06.2012 and thereafter, he became physically unfit for more than 120 days, therefore, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to grant him premature retirement with retirement benefits/compensation. He relies upon Certificate dated 28.01.2013 issued by Senior 1 Consultant Neurosurgeon, Indraprashta Apollo Hospital, New Delhi in support of his contention that the Doctor had opined as early as in January, 2013 that it is highly unlikely that condition of petitioner’s husband will improve and he will rejoin service. Thus, he submits that as per ONGC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1994, petitioner’s husband was entitled for premature retirement. 6. ONGC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1994 (hereafter referred to as “ONGC CDA Rules”) is enclosed as Annexure No.10 to writ petition. Rule 41(c) of the said Rules deals with premature retirement and provides that the appointing authority may prematurely retire an employee who has attained age of 50 years and is considered to be inefficient or of doubtful integrity or medically unfit, by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months’ salary in lieu of notice. 7. Careful perusal of Rule 41(c) of ONGC CDA Rules, indicates that it is akin to provision for compulsory retirement under the State and Central Government, which can be invoked by appointing authority to chop off the deadwood in order to bring about efficiency in service. The contention that her husband was entitled for premature retirement in view of provision contained in Rule 41(c) of ONGC CDA Rules, thus, is misconceived as the said provision does not create any right in favour of employee but it confers a right upon employer to give marching notice to an employee who is inefficient, medically unfit or of doubtful integrity. 8. The claim of petitioner is based on Composite Social Security Scheme framed under ONGC CMD Rules, 2011 which envisages grant 2 of compensation in the event of death or permanent total disability of an ONGC employee who has opted to become member of the scheme. 9. From pleadings made in writ petition, it is not clear as to whether petitioner’s husband had opted for becoming member of the aforesaid scheme or whether he was making contributions towards this scheme or not. 10. Learned counsel appearing for ONGC submits that before retirement of petitioner’s husband, an application seeking premature retirement was made on his behalf which was rejected by competent authority vide order dated 22.05.2013, which was not challenged either by her husband or petitioner herself before any forum. He further submits that as petitioner’s husband was due to retire on 31.05.2013, therefore, competent authority in its wisdom thought it imprudent to retire him prematurely few days before his completing age of superannuation. He further submits that benefit of ONGC Composite Social Security Scheme is available to serving employees, who are referred to as member of service, or dependents of employees who die during service. He submits that since petitioner’s husband retired in the month of May, 2013, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to benefit under ONGC Composite Social Security Scheme. 11. Benefit under ONGC Composite Social Security Scheme is available inter alia to a person who is discharged from service on account of permanent total disability. Petitioner’s husband was never discharged on the ground of physical disability and he retired 3 only upon completing age of superannuation. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that her husband was entitled for premature retirement but as discussed above, relevant provision of ONGC CDA rules do not create any right in favour of an employee to seek premature retirement but creates a right in favour of employer. 13. From pleadings, it is also not known as to whether petitioner’s husband had opted to become member of ONGC Composite Social Security Scheme or whether he was making contributions under the said scheme. 14. In such view of the matter, the direction to pay compensation of ₹50 lakh as claimed by petitioner cannot be issued. 15. Thus, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.07.2025 SS 4