State of Maharashtra vs Bhagwan
State of Maharashtra vs Bhagwan Supreme Court Case 2022
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7682-7684 OF 2021
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Bhagwan & Ors. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7685-7687 OF 2021
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Sudhakar Namdeo Gaikwad & Ors. Etc. Etc. …Respondent(s)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7688-7690 OF 2021
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Uttam & Ors. Etc. Etc. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
1
dated 20.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.748 of 2014 and other
connected writ petitions by which the High Court has allowed the said
writ petitions and has directed the State Government to extend the
pensionary benefits to the employees of Water and Land Management
Institute, the State of Maharashtra and another have preferred the
present appeals. The State preferred review applications which came to
be dismissed.
2. That Water and Land Management Institute (hereinafter referred to
as “WALMI”) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860, which has its own Memorandum of Association. WALMI is being
administered by its Governing Council. WALMI is an autonomous
institution governed by its own Rules and Regulations. WALMI came
into existence in the year 1980 under the World Bank Project of the
Irrigation Department. The funds and properties of the Society and their
entire management vests in the Governing Council. The main objects
for which the Society has been formed are as under:-
“(a) With a view to promoting advancement of science
and acquisition of scientific knowledge to provide
instructions and training in all branches of science
both theoretical and applied and in particular in
Water Management and Land Development for
Irrigation and agriculture.
(b) To establish an institution for imparting instructions
and training and conducting research in Water
Management and Land Development for irrigation
and agriculture.
2
(c) To prescribe courses for instruction and training in
Water Management and Land Development for
irrigation and agriculture and hold examinations and
grant certificates, diplomas etc.
(d) To seek affiliation of the said institute with Universities
and other appropriate academic bodies both in India
and abroad and to obtain recognition of the said
courses conducted at the said institute and for the
said examinations conducted by the Institute and
diplomas, certificates, etc., granted by the Institute.
(e) To provide consultancy service to the Government
Local Bodies and other organisations in water
management and land development for irrigation
and agriculture.
(f) To undertake research and conduct experiments in
various aspects of water management and land
development arid to collaborate with other similar
organisations for research and development.
(g) To send within the country and abroad for
specialised training in Water Management and Land
Development for irrigation and agriculture person
including members of staff of the said Institute and
bear and pay the costs of such training.
(h) To start, conduct, print, publish and exhibit any
magazines, periodicals, newspapers, books,
pamphlets or posters that may be considered
desirable for the promotion of the objects of the
Society.
(i) To invest and deal with the funds of the Society.
(j) To make rules and bye-laws for the conduct of the
affairs of the society and Institute and from time to
time add, to amend, vary or rescind them.
(k) Make donations to such persons or institutions
whether of cash or any other assets, as may be, that
are directly or indirectly conducive to any of the
Society's objects, or otherwise expedient and in
3
particular, to remunerate any person or corporations
introducing, or assisting the Society.
(l) establish and support or aid the establishment of,
and support associations, institutions, societies,
funds, trusts and conveniences for the benefit of the
employees of ex-employees or persons having
connections of such person and in particular friendly
or other benefit of societies and to grant pension,
allowances, gratuities, either by way of annual
payments, or by way of lump sum and to make
payments towards insurance to form and contribute
to provident and benefit funds to or for such
persons.
(m) Generally to do and execute all such other acts,
matters and things as are incidental or conductive to
or necessary for attainment of the above objects or
any of them.”
2.1 The Governing Council in its meeting held on 11.08.1980 framed
the WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980, which provided the service
conditions including certain allowances to be paid to its employees. It
was provided in the said Rules that the Service Rules made by the
Government of Maharashtra for its employees (as may be
amended/modified from time to time) shall apply to the employees of the
Institute unless they are repugnant to the Rules made or may be made
by the Institute. It is specifically provided that Government Rules for
Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity shall not, however, apply. The
Governing Council in its 41st meeting held on 31.01.1995 reiterated that
the Governing Council has made the Establishment / Service Rules of
the Government of Maharashtra applicable to WALMI except the Rules
4
for Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity. It was also mentioned that the
Contributory Provident Fund Rules framed by WALMI have been made
applicable. Grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Grantin-aid Institutes/Corporation etc. came to be discussed in the meeting of
the Cabinet Ministers held on 30.01.1997. After due deliberation, the
Cabinet approved the proposal to the effect that no pensionary benefits
should be granted to the employees working in the Institute receiving
Grant-in-aid, Corporations etc.
2.2 But thereafter, the Governing Council of WALMI in its 44th meeting
held on 13.08.1997 resolved to send proposal to the Government to
grant pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. The then
Director General of WALMI issued a communication dated 12.10.2000 to
the Secretary, Irrigation Department and gave his opinion in affirmative
for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. But the
Government of Maharashtra through its Finance Department issued a
resolution dated 31.10.2005 and introduced a new Contributory Pension
Scheme for the Government servants who are recruited on or after
01.11.2005 in the State Government service. On 08.11.2005, the State
Government through its Finance Department issued another resolution
and resolved that the employees serving in Grant-in-aid Institutes,
Mandals, Corporations etc. are not entitled for grant of pensionary
benefits and the Pension Rules shall not be made applicable to them.
5
2.3 Again, the Director General of WALMI issued a communication
dated 06.02.2008 to the Secretary, Irrigation Department and prayed for
grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. By
communication dated 12.07.2012, the Finance Department of the State
Government again reiterated that the employees of WALMI are not
entitled for pensionary benefits and the Contributory Provident Fund
shall not be applicable to them.
2.4 Hence some of the employees of WALMI filed a Writ Petition
No.1507 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Aurangabad Bench. The High Court directed the State to take a
decision on the proposal dated 06.02.2008 within a period of six months.
Vide communication dated 05.03.2013, the State Government informed
that the request for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of
WALMI has been rejected.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the communication dated
05.03.2013, rejecting the proposal/request for grant of pensionary
benefits to the employees of WALMI, the employees/ex-employees of
WALMI preferred the present writ petitions before the High Court and
prayed to direct the State Government to grant pensionary benefits,
which are available to the State Government employees, also to the
employees of WALMI.
6
2.6 That by the impugned common judgment and order, the High
Court has allowed the writ petitions and has quashed and set aside the
communication dated 05.03.2013 of the State Government refusing to
extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI and
consequently has directed to extend pensionary benefits to the
employees of WALMI, with arrears w.e.f. 06.05.2013. While allowing the
writ petitions, the High Court has observed that the amount available
with WALMI and deposited with E.P.F. towards the employee's
contribution itself is sufficient to meet the financial liability of the
pensionary benefits to employees and that there does not appear to be
any reasonable basis for the State Government to refuse to extend the
benefit of pension to the retired employees of WALMI. The High Court
has also further observed that as the WALMI institute essentially
performs educational and research activities and receives 100% grant
from the State Government, that the service conditions of employees are
regulated by Maharashtra Civil Services Rules and that the employees
have been from time to time extended the benefits of wage, pay scale
revision on par with the Government employees. That the employees
are being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State Government
and hence there is no justification to treat the employees of the WALMI
differently than that of the State Government employees. Observing so,
the High Court has observed and held that the denial of pensionary
7
benefits to the employees of WALMI would be discriminatory and
violative of the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court directing the State to
extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of the WALMI, the
State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Irrigation Department and
Finance Department have preferred the present appeals.
3. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General assisted by Shri
Sachin Patil has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri J.N.
Singh, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondents -
original writ petitioners.
4. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf
of the State of Maharashtra has vehemently submitted that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave
error in quashing and setting aside the conscious decision taken by the
State Government not to extend the pensionary benefits to the
employees of WALMI. It is submitted that the High Court has failed to
appreciate that the WALMI is an autonomous body and a Society
registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860
8
and is an independent entity governed by its own Rules and
Regulations. It was therefore submitted that the employees of WALMI
cannot be put to par with the State Government employees.
4.1 It was further submitted that under the Service Rules applicable to
the employees of WALMI, as such, there is no provision for
pension/pensionary benefits. It was submitted that under the Rules and
as per the decision taken by the Governing Council, only Gratuity Rules
applicable to the State Government employees are made applicable.
4.2 It was further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the State that as such when a conscious decision
had been taken by the State Government after due deliberations, it can
be said to be a policy decision and it was decided that the Pension
Rules applicable to the State Government employees shall not be made
applicable to the employees of WALMI and therefore they are not
entitled to the pensionary benefits, the High Court ought not to have
interfered with such a policy decision in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor General that
WALMI is an independent autonomous body, a Society registered under
the Societies Registration Act and the administration and management
9
vest with its Governing Council. It was submitted that the employees of
WALMI are governed by its own Service Rules, which specifically
prohibits the pensionary benefits to its employees and only Gratuity
Rules are made applicable and, therefore, the employees of the WALMI
cannot be put at par with the Government employees.
4.4 It is submitted that even otherwise, whether to grant and/or extend
the pensionary benefits to the employees of the WALMI, which is an
autonomous body, is a policy decision, which was not required to be
interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that to interfere with such a
policy decision would not be permissible while exercising powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heavy reliance was placed upon
a decision of this Court in the case of T.M. Sampath and Ors. Vs.
Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 333.
It was submitted that the above was a case with respect to the
employees of National Water Development Agency (NWDA), which was
also established as a Society and which was an autonomous body. The
employees of the NWDA claimed pensionary benefits on par with the
Central Government employees claiming parity between them. This
Court observed and held that the principle of parity shall be inapplicable
to employees of NWDA since NWDA cannot be treated as an
instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India
10
merely on the basis that its funds are granted by the Central
Government. It was submitted that a claim for equality can be made
when there is discrimination by the State between two similarly situated
persons. It was further observed that discrimination cannot be invoked
in cases where discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two
different authorities functioning as State under Article 12 of the
Constitution.
4.5 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of
Kerala and Anr. Vs. Naveena Prabhu and Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 649, it
was submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor General that in financial
matters Court would abstain from issuing directions having financial
implications. It was submitted that the Court would not generally interfere
with a Government’s policy decision.
4.6 It was further urged that in the present case, the High Court has
not at all considered the financial implications on extending the
pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. It is submitted that the
High Court has not at all considered and appreciated the additional
financial burden, which will be recurring, if the pensionary benefits are
extended to the employees of the WALMI.
11
4.7 It was submitted by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
of India that as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, whether to
grant a particular service benefit like pension etc. should be left to the
employer as it will have a financial implication. Reliance was placed on
the decisions of this Court in the cases of Secretary, Finance
Department and others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service
Association and others, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153; State of Bihar and
others Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger
and others, (2019) 18 SCC 301; and Punjab State Cooperative Milk
Producers Federation Limited and another Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia
and others, (2021) 8 SCC 784.
4.8 Thus, making the above submissions and relying upon the above
decisions, it was prayed to allow the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – original
writ petitioners while opposing the present appeals vehemently
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Courts, after having been satisfied that there was no valid justification
not to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI has
rightly directed the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the
employees of WALMI.
12
5.1 It was submitted that WALMI, right from its inception is being paid
funds from the Irrigation Department and WALMI receives Grant-in-aid
from the Government. It was submitted that the object and purpose of
WALMI is to impart training/education. Further that even the staff was
allocated by the Irrigation Department of the State. It was further
submitted that even the posts, which are allotted to WALMI are included
in the 45,297 posts available and sanctioned for the Irrigation
Department. That the posts meant for WALMI are posts on
establishment of Water Resources Department of Government of
Maharashtra and, thus, WALMI can be said to be a part of establishment
of Water Resources Department for all purposes and, therefore, the
employees of the WALMI cannot be treated differently and cannot be
extended a differential treatment in the matter of payment of pensionary
benefits. It was urged that the High Court has rightly observed that
denial of pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI is clearly
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5.2 It was further submitted that the High Court has rightly observed
that as the WALMI has sufficient funds to meet the financial burden of
pensionary benefits, therefore, there is no justification to deny the
pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI, more particularly, when
WALMI is a Grant-in-aid Institute and is fully funded by the State
Government. It was contended that apart from the fact that WALMI
13
receives 100% grant from the State Government, the Service Conditions
of its employees are regulated by the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules
and even the employees of WALMI have been from time to time
extended the benefits of wage, pay-scale revision, on par with the State
Government employees including the fixation of time bound pay scale
and even the employees are being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of
the State Government and, therefore, there is no justification at all to
extend the differential treatment by the State Government to the
employees of WALMI by denying pensionary benefits to the employees
of WALMI.
5.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions of
this Court in the cases of Purshottam Lal and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Anr., (1973) 1 SCC 651 and Haryana State Minor Irrigation
Tubewells Corporation and Ors. Vs. G.S. Uppal and Ors., (2008) 7
SCC 375, it was prayed to dismiss the present appeals.
6. We have thus heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
7. The short question, which is posed for consideration of this Court
is “whether the employees of the WALMI are entitled to the pensionary
benefits on par with the State Government employees?”
14
8. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has
directed the State to extend the retirement benefits to the employees of
WALMI mainly on the following grounds:-
(i) that the primary functions of WALMI are educational, the
purpose of establishing the Institute is to impart training to
engineers and farmers of Maharashtra State and to provide
expert advice to the Water Resources Department,
Government of Maharashtra relating irrigation management;
(ii) that the Institute receives 100% grant from the Government
since 1993;
(iii) that the posts created on the establishment are computed
amongst the sanctioned posts of the Water Resources
Department; the control in respect of the management and
the governance rest with high-ranking officers, i.e.,
Secretaries of the Government Department;
(iv) the Regulations applicable to the Government employees
relating to disciplinary matters as well as withdrawal of
allowances like medical allowance, leave travel allowance,
regulations relating to grant of leave so also regulations
relating to disciplinary matters are uniform as in case of
Government employees;
(v) the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules are applicable to the
Government employees;
15
(vi) that the employees of WALMI have been extended the
benefit of time bound promotional scale as in case of
Government employees;
(vii) that the employees of WALMI have also received the benefit
of wage, pay scale revision made applicable to the
Government employees;
(viii) that for all practicable purposes, the employees of WALMI
are treated on par with the Government employees; the
salary and allowances payable to the employees of WALMI
are being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State; and
(ix) the amount available with WALMI and deposited with E.P.F.
towards the employee's contribution itself is sufficient to meet
the financial liability of the pensionary benefits to employees.
8.1 On the aforesaid grounds, the High Court has ultimately observed
and held that there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the
State to refuse to extend the benefit of pension to the retired employees
of WALMI.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, we are of the opinion that none of the aforesaid grounds justify
extension of the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI.
16
9.1 WALMI is an independent autonomous body and a Society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The
administration and management of the WALMI is through its Governing
Council. That WALMI has its own Rules, namely, WALMI Establishment
Rules, 1980, governing the service conditions and the benefits available
to the employees of WALMI. The WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980
provide for the benefits of travelling allowance, daily allowance, medical
reimbursement, house rent allowance etc. but however, do not provide
for pension, provident fund. Thereafter the Governing Council of WALMI
has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except Pension
Rules. Thus, from the above, it can be seen that WALMI is an
independent autonomous entity governed by their own Rules and
Regulations and the administration and management of WALMI is being
run through/by its Governing Council. Even the State is not the
Disciplinary Authority of the employees of WALMI. That in the G.R.
dated 17.03.2006, it is stated that in WALMI 170 posts are created on
temporary establishment. However, it may be true that posts created in
the WALMI are included in the total sanctioned number of posts in the
Water Resources Department. However, in the said G.R. it is specifically
observed that WALMI is an autonomous institution of the Government
and 214 posts are sanctioned on fixed temporary establishment and 168
posts on converted temporary establishment. It further provides that as
the posts are person-wise on the converted temporary establishment,
17
the posts shall be abolished automatically, if the person retires or resigns
or becomes vacant in any other way. It further provides that WALMI is an
autonomous institution, the staff of it cannot be transferred anywhere.
9.2 It is required to be noted that as such the Government vide G.R.
dated 08.11.2005 specifically took a policy decision that the employees
of aided institutes, boards, corporations, who are not governed by
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, shall not be made
applicable to such institutions. Even the proposal made by the then
Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of
WALMI came to be rejected by the State Government. Neither the G.R.
dated 08.11.2005 nor the decision of the State Government refusing to
extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI are
challenged.
10. In view of the above factual scenario, the question posed is:
“whether the employees of WALMI, which is an
independent autonomous entity registered under the
Societies Registration Act, are entitled to the pensionary
benefits on par with the State Government employees?”
10.1 While answering the aforesaid question, few decisions of this
Court on the inference of the Courts in the policy decision having
18
financial implications and whether the employees of the board/societies,
who are autonomous bodies can claim parity in the pay-scale and/or
other benefits which may be available to the Government employees,
are required to be considered.
10.2 In the case of T.M. Sampath and Ors. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of
Water Resources and Ors. (supra), the employees of National Water
Development Agency (NWDA), an autonomous body under the aegis
and control of Ministry of Water Resources claimed the pensionary
benefits on par with the Central Government employees. Refusing to
allow such pensionary benefits to the employees of NWDA on par with
the Central Government employees, in paragraphs 16 and 17, it was
observed and held as under:-
“16. On the issue of parity between the employees of
NWDA and Central Government employees, even if it is
assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist or were not
applicable on the date of the OM i.e. 1-5-1987, the
relevant date of parity, the principle of parity cannot be
applicable to the employees of NWDA. NWDA cannot be
treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12
of the Constitution merely on the basis that its funds are
granted by the Central Government. In Zee Telefilms
Ltd. v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649], it was held by
this Court that the autonomous bodies having some
nexus with the Government by itself would not bring them
within the sweep of the expression “State” and each case
must be determined on its own merits. Thus, the plea of
the employees of NWDA to be treated on a par with their
counterparts in the Central Government under sub-rule
(6)(iv) of Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, merely
on the basis of funding is not applicable.
19
17. Even if it is presumed that NWDA is “State” under
Article 12 of the Constitution, the appellants have failed to
prove that they are on a par with their counterparts, with
whom they claim parity. As held by this Court in UT,
Chandigarh v. Krishan Bhandari [(1996) 11 SCC 348], the
claim to equality can be claimed when there is
discrimination by the State between two persons who are
similarly situated. The said discrimination cannot be
invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be
shown is between acts of two different authorities
functioning as State under Article 12. Thus, the
employees of NWDA cannot be said to be “Central
Government employees” as stated in the OM for its
applicability.”
As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the
employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right,
the same service benefits on par with the Government employees.
Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the
Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may
be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such
institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of
such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with
the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly,
when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their
own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and
the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par.
20
10.3 In the case of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers
Federation Limited and Anr. Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia and Ors., (2021)
8 SCC 784, in paragraph 32, it is observed as under:-
“32. The Central or State Government is empowered to
levy taxes to meet out the expenses of the State. It is
always a conscious decision of the Government as to how
much taxes have to be levied so as to not cause
excessive burden on the citizens. But the Boards and
Corporations have to depend on either their own
resources or seek grant from the Central/ State
Government, as the case may be, for their expenditures.
Therefore, the grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the
Central/State Government employees stand on different
footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of
the State.”
10.4 As per the settled proposition of law, the Court should refrain from
interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect
and having financial implications. Whether to grant certain benefits to
the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings
and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may
result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences.
10.5 In the present case, WALMI being an autonomous body, registered
under the Societies Registration Act, the employees of WALMI are
governed by their own Service Rules and conditions, which specifically
do not provide for any pensionary benefits; the Governing Council of
WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except the
Pension Rules. Therefore, as such a conscious policy decision has
21
been taken not to adopt the Pension Rules applicable to the State
Government employees; that the State Government has taken such a
policy decision in the year 2005 not to extend the pensionary benefits to
the employees of the aided institutes, boards, corporations etc.; and the
proposal of the then Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary
benefits to the employees of WALMI has been specifically turned down
by the State Government. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the High Court is not justified in directing the State to
extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI, which is an
independent autonomous entity.
10.6 The observations made by the High court that as the salary and
allowances payable to the employees of WALMI are being paid out of
the Consolidated Fund of the State and/or that the WALMI is getting
grant from the Government are all irrelevant considerations, so far as
extending the pensionary benefits to its employees is concerned.
WALMI has to run its administration from its own financial resources.
WALMI has no financial powers of imposing any tax like a State and/or
the Central Government and WALMI has to depend upon the grants to
be made by the State Government.
10.7 Now, so far as the observations made by the High Court that the
amount available with WALMI and deposited with E.P.F. towards the
22
employee's contribution itself is sufficient to meet the financial liability of
the pensionary benefits to the employees and, therefore, there is no
justification and/or reasonable basis for the State Government to refuse
to extend the benefit of pension to the retired employees of WALMI is
concerned, it is to be noted that merely because WALMI has a fund with
itself, it cannot be a ground to extend the pensionary benefits. Grant of
pensionary benefits is not a one-time payment. Grant of pensionary
benefits is a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous
liability in future towards the pensionary benefits. Therefore, merely
because at one point of time, WALMI might have certain funds does not
mean that for all times to come, it can bear such burden of paying
pension to all its employees. In any case, it is ultimately for the State
Government and the Society (WALMI) to take their own policy decision
whether to extend the pensionary benefits to its employees or not. The
interference by the Judiciary in such a policy decision having financial
implications and/or having a cascading effect is not at all warranted and
justified.
11. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated, the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court
directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of
WALMI is unsustainable, both in law and on facts. Accordingly, the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court
23
deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and
set aside. It is held that the employees of WALMI, which is an
independent autonomous body registered under the Societies Act are
not entitled to the pensionary benefits.
All these appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
JANUARY 10, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
24
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
Comments
Post a Comment