Krishnaji Raghuvendra Kulkarni vs The Municipal Corporation of The City of Pune and Others

By this Writ Petition, Petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner vide Circular dated 19th February, 1987.

The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition briefly, are as follows:

Grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that respondent No. 2-Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation vide Notification dated 19th February, 1987 allowed the retired employees of Pune Municipal Corporation who were in receipt of Provident Fund benefits to switch over to the Pensionary Scheme by submitting an option. Petitioner submitted such an option. Petitioner was working in the Army from 1941 to 1949. On September 20, 1951, petitioner joined Pune Municipal Transport Undertaking. From 26th September, 1952, he started working continuously with the Transport Undertaking. He worked for more than 20 years. He retired on October 5, 1972. At the time of his retirement, he received the retirement benefits which consisted of Provident Fund and Gratuity. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Nakara''s case, option was given to the petitioner to opt for the Pension Scheme in lieu of Provident Fund. However, at this stage itself it may be mentioned that the petitioner refused to return the benefits which he had received under the Provident Fund Scheme with interest at 6%. The petitioner, by this present Petition, has now opted for the pensionary benefits. The facts remains, however, that at the relevant time, the petitioner did not refund the benefits under the Provident Fund and, therefore, he was not allowed to opt for the pensionary benefits.

It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that in the present matter, certain Notification came to be issued by Pune Municipal Corporation on 19th February, 1987 which allowed the retired employees of Pune Municipal Corporation who were in receipt of Provident Fund benefits to switch over to the Pensionary Scheme. It is contended that the said Notification was also applicable to the employees of the Transport Undertaking. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Vasant Gopal Bhagwat (deceased) Civil Appeal No. 4472 of 1998, by the Apex Court, there is no merit in the first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In the said judgment, it has been laid down, inter alia, by the Apex Court that employees of Transport Undertaking are not governed by the Notification applicable to the employees of Pune Municipal Corporation.

It is next alleged on behalf of the petitioner that in the present matter, the petitioner should be permitted to opt for the Pension Scheme. It is contended that in the present matter, the petitioner even today can avail of the benefit of the Pension Scheme although at the relevant time, he did not refund the amount of the benefits under the Provident Fund Scheme. In the alternative, it is contended that at least some ex-gratia payment may be recommended as the petitioner has suffered on account of the loss in the retirement benefits for not opting in time. We do not find any merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that option was given to the petitioner to opt for the Pension Scheme subject to the petitioner refunding part of the amount received by him under the Provident Fund Scheme with the stipulated rate of interest which was the nominal rate prescribed at 6% p.a. However, petitioner was not agreeable to refund the benefits he had received under the Provident Fund Scheme. It is well settled that Pension Scheme are operational on the basis of the Pension Fund which requires an employee who opts for the Pension Scheme to return certain benefits under the Provident Fund Scheme. In the present case, that option was given at the relevant time. The petitioner did not agree to return the amount received by him under the Provident Fund Scheme and in the circumstances, he could not opt for the Pension Scheme. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we do not see any merit in the contention of the petitioner that he should be now allowed to join the Pension Scheme. It is also not possible for this Court to recommend payment of ex-gratia. amount, particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Taking into account the above facts and circumstances of the case, Writ Petition fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.