P. Muralidhar and Others vs The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Others

P.B. Bajanthri, J.—These appeals have been preferred by the appellants/petitioners in W.P. Nos. 30793-30809/2010 questioning the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petitions.

The appellants joined service in the first respondent-the Aeronautical Development Agency during the period between 1986 to 2002. The said organization was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on 16.6.1984. Appellant No. 11 submitted a representation for implementation of pension scheme and pointed out that the same is required in order to rectify the anomaly in retirement benefits between ADA employees and other Central Government organization employees. Similarly, appellant No. 1 submitted representation on 29.9.2005. Appellant No. 1 preferred revision petition against denial of pension vide Office order dated 29.3.2006. Revision petition was turned down stating as follows:--

"IV) The new pension scheme having been introduced in the Central Government with effect from 1.1.2004 no rationale would appear to exist for extending a GPF cum pension scheme in any autonomous organization at this stage" When things stood thus appellants and others caused a legal notice to the respondent on 7.4.2008. The same was replied by the first respondent on 19.5.2008. The appellants aggrieved by the decision of the respondents refusing to extend pension scheme to the employees of the ADA preferred writ petition in W.P. No. 10325/2008. On 20.11.2009, this Court disposed of the said writ petition while directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 8.9.2005, 28.5.2007 and the notice dated 7.4.2008 while observing that it is not within his power to formulate a scheme and grant pension which is the domain of the fourth and fifth respondents and granted three months'' time to fourth and fifth respondents'' in the said writ petition for compliance i.e. for consideration of their representations. For non-compliance of directions passed in W.P. 10325/2008 contempt petitions were filed and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.6.2010 in view of the rejection of the claim of the appellants on 14.5.2010 by respondents. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.5.2010 the appellants preferred writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 30793-809/2010 which came to dismissed on 31.10.2011 while making observations as follows:

"6. Indisputedly, the 1st respondent-employer of the petitioners, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and was set up in 1984. The petitioners having been appointed by the 1st respondent are not the Central Government servants. All the employees of the 1st respondent are covered by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It is not the case of the petitioners that the terms and conditions of their employment with the 1st respondent envisages extension of pensionary benefits. The Official Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 as at Annexure-C has application to only Central Government employees, who are governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and not to the employees of the 1st respondent." The learned Single Judge also noticed that earlier writ petition filed by the appellants was confined for issuance of direction to Secretary of Union of Government, Ministry of Defence, to consider the representations submitted by the appellants and further referred to the memorandum dated 14.5.2010 wherein the grievance of the appellants has been considered and made it clear that the appellants grievance cannot be considered. An extract of the decision at Paras 8 and 9 is reproduced herein:--

"8. It is, therefore, stated that the demand for extension of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to the employees (both retired and serving) of the ADA who joined before 1.1.2004 cannot be agreed to. However, the Government has already issued an OM No. 1(2)/E.V/2007 dated 30th June, 2009, wherein employees, who joined prior to 1.1.2004 and covered under CPF scheme, have an option to shift over to the New Pension Scheme.

This issues with the approval of the Secretary, Deptt. of Expenditure and Secretary, Deptt. of Defence Research and Development, Ministry of Defence."

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that before the learned single Judge the appellants have cited the decision of the Apex Court rendered in S.L. Verma and others reported in (2007)2 SCC (L and S) 312 and the same has been considered while quoting Para 7 of the said judgment. Further, an extract of reported decision of the Apex Court reported in Krishena Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and others, is taken note of by the learned Single Judge, in particular, para 45 which reads as follows:

"45......In the matter of expenditure includible in the Annual Financial Statement, this Court has to be loath to pass any order or give any direction, because of the division of functions between the three co-equal organs of the government under the Constitution." The learned Single Judge has considered each of the contentions of the appellants so also the decision cited by the appellants and rejected their claim like change over of employees from contributory provident fund scheme to pension scheme. The appellants heavily relied on O.M. dated 1.5.1987 vide Annexure-C to the writ petition read with Annexure-F relating to list of identical institutions coming under the Central Government where CCS(Pension Rules) 1972 is applicable. In the said list 16 organizations/institutions have been identified for the purpose of extending pension Rules, 1972. However, the first respondent Aeronautical Development Agency is not included. Consequently, any reliance on Annexure-"C" dated 1.5.1987 and Annexure-"F" are not helpful to the appellants since they are not similarly situated persons. The appellants even in these appeals have reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petitions and also relied on the decision of the Apex Court mainly in S.L Verma''s case. The said decision has already been discussed by the learned Single Judge and there is no error in stating that the said decision is not relevant to the appellants'' matter.

The crux of the matter is relating to extending benefit of pension scheme of the Central Government Employees. It is purely a policy decision of the Government. The Courts cannot compel Government to frame a scheme in a particular manner or to frame scheme relating to service conditions of the employees. In this regard, the Apex Court and other Courts have time and again held that Courts cannot interfere in respect of the policy decision of the Government. The said issue was also considered by the learned Single Judge both in W.P. No. 10325/2008 and in W.P. Nos. 30793-809/2010. Recent decisions in respect of policy matter is concerned are reported in P.U. Joshi and Others Vs. The Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, ; (2008) 9 SCC 242 [Pushpa Rani v. Union of India]; Hukum Chand Gupta Vs. Director General, ICAR and Others, and Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . Thus the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other Courts is that insofar as policy decisions of the Government the Courts have no power to interfere unless it is arbitrary on the face of the record. The appellants further relied on two more decisions namely Dr. V.P. Singh and others v. Executive Council, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Dr. Mrs. K. Prabha v. University of Delhi. The factual aspects of the aforesaid judgments are entirely different. In the present case the appellants are working in the first respondent Society-ADA the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 has not been adopted or extended in the first respondent-Society-ADA. Therefore, the aforecited decisions are not relevant. In fact, in the case of Nair Service Society Vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan and Others, the Apex Court has held that how the decisions of the Apex Court are to be relied. An extract of the said judgment is reproduced herein:

"48. Several decisions have been cited before us by the respondents, but it is well established that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the particular service rules in the State governing that field. Reservation provisions are enabling provisions, and different State Governments can have different methods of reservation. There is no challenge to the Rules, and what is challenged is in the matter of application alone. In our opinion the communal rotation has to be applied taking 20 vacancies as a block." 5. In view of the above said principle the decisions cited by the appellants are not relevant. It is to be noted that in Government Memorandum No. 28(1)/2010/D(RandD) dated 14.5.2010 (Annexure-"P") with reference to O.M. No. 1(2)/E.V./2007 dated 30.6.2009 it is made clear that the demand for extension of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 to the Employees(both retired and serving) of the ADA who joined before 1.1.2004 cannot be agreed to. This decision is policy of the Government, since ADA has introduced a pension scheme(new pension scheme) for such of its employees who joined on or after 1.1.2004 and for pre-2004 employees, CPF is still applicable. Therefore, fixing cut off date for extending any service benefits are not arbitrary as held by the Apex Court in number of decisions. One of the decisions reported is in State of Haryana and others Vs. Rai Chand Jain and others, etc. etc., , which reads as follows:--

"5. Mr. Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel has stated that fixation of 38 months for payment of arrears is arbitrary. We find no force in the contention. It is for the Government to decide as a part of the executive policy as to from which date the arrears would be granted to the employees. The matter being an executive policy in character, we do not think that the decision taken by them is arbitrary violating Article 14 of the Constitution." 6. The learned single Judge rightly held that appellants are not government servants of the Central Government and the Union Government expressed their inability to introduce pension scheme for employee society - ADA-1st respondent. Hence, there is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge so as to interfere.

Thus, we find no merit in these appeals and accordingly, the appeals are dismissed without order as to costs.