JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner which is an association of superannuated employees of the Salt Power House Sambhar Lake District Jaipur has moved this court by way of the aforesaid writ petition for grant of post retiral consequential benefits such as pension, provident fund, gratuity and other service benefits as may be admissible to them in accordance with the rules of their erstwhile Employer- Management of M/s. Sambhar Lake Salts Ltd., Jaipur (respondents No. 4) herein. 2. The Sambhar Lake Salts Ltd. is a subsidiary company of M/s. Hindustan Salts Ltd. (respondent No. 3) which is a Government of India enterprise and hence an instrumentality of the State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under .Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended by the petitioner that the Rajasthan Govt. has 40% share subsidy in the said undertaking and its own Power House to meet the. needs of energy of the said undertaking and the members of the petitioner association were employed in the said Power House and consequent on their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation during the intervening period between 1952 to 1988, they got meagre amount of the Provident Fund only towards their retiral benefits in complete negation of their conditions of service and also in violation of their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. By an order dated 5.1.1959 issued by the Salt Commissioner, Government of India in pursuance of the decision of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, the ownership and management of Sambhar Lake Salts Ltd. at Deedwana and Khraghoda were transferred to Hindustan Salt Ltd., Jaipur (respondents 4) and the services of the employees of the aforesaid salt works were also placed at the disposal of the company w.e.f. 1.1.1959. The following conditions (iii) & (ix) which were admissible to the employees in the office of Salt Commissioner Government of India were equally made applicable and extended to the employees of M/s. Sambhar Lake Salts which are as under : "(iii) Leave salary and pension contributions in respect of Shri Kanaram at the rates prescribed under the relevant rules of the Central Government will be paid by the company. (ix) The Company will afford medical facilities so far as may be, not inferior than those admissible to him under the rules of the Central Government from time to time." 4. That as on the relevant date of absorption of the employees of Sambhar Salt Works in M/s. Hindustan Salts there was no classification as to who should be absorbed and who should be not absorbed. At the time of absorption, the employees of Salts Works Sambhar Lake Salts Ltd. they were called upon to exercise their option as to whether they wanted to remain in the service of the Central Govt. or in the services of the salt company and accordingly their services were decided. However, no option was taken from the employees working in Power House of M/s. Sambhar Lake Salts that is the members of the petitioner association who belong to very low strata of society and who were working at Baramaasi as peons, Jamadars, Gang men, switchmen, drivers etc. Thus, the employees of all the categories of Salt works who here absorbed in M/s. Hindustan Salts Ltd. and in Sambhar Ltd. respectively, when such employees raised a demand for pension and other post retiral benefits, they were told that since they were only work-charged employees, they will not be entitled to get the benefits of pension, provident fund etc. although they were getting all the service benefits as admissible during their service period in accordance with Company's Rules. Thus they were all made to retire with the payment of meagre amounts of Provident Fund on attaining the age of superannuation. It has further been contended that as per the Government of India's order dated 13.2.1954 even those employees who were paid out of contingency funds were treated to be regular employees in the same pay scales as admissible to class IV employees and they were extended the pensionary benefits. This fact is evident from the perusal of relevant correspondence on the record. 5. This fact is evident from the perusal of relevant correspondence on the record. 5. Failing to get any reply to their representations to various functionaries of the State regarding the admissibility of consequential benefits and other post retiral benefits as referred to above and as per the details given in Schedule-A to this petition, the petitioner association was left with no alternative but to move this court for the necessary relief to the members of its association who were denied the same by the Management of the Respondent No. 4 consequent upon their attaining the age of superannuation. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the report of the fourth pay commission which was published by the Central Govt. and by which the following conditions were made : "Contributory Provident Fund beneficiaries who have retired prior to March 31, 1985 with a basic pay up to Rs. 500/- per mensem may be given an ex gratia payment to the benefits already received by them under the CPF scheme. The ex gratia payments and the periodic increases already received by those who retired on pay up to Rs. 500/- may be so adjusted that the total amount of ex gratia payment is not less than Rs. 300/-. The ex gratia amount of Rs. 300/- per mensem may be reviewed as and when dearness relief is sanctioned to pensioners." 6. The aforesaid recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission has since already been accepted by the Central Govt. whereas the petitioner association has been informed that the recommendations of the said commission are not applicable to the Company. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have contended in their reply that the petitioner association has not given any detail of its members and whatever benefits admissible to them as per the conditions were applicable to them when they joined the services of the Company, in absence of these details no direction possibly given by this court. On merits, it has not been disputed that Hindustan Salts Ltd. is a Govt. of India Enterprise and M/s. Sambhar Lake Salts Ltd. is its subsidiary company. On merits, it has not been disputed that Hindustan Salts Ltd. is a Govt. of India Enterprise and M/s. Sambhar Lake Salts Ltd. is its subsidiary company. However, it has been contended that since the petitioner has not given any specific details with regard to its members who were employed in the Power House from time to time and when they retired from services of M/s. Sambhar Lake on attaining the age of superannuation, it is not possible for the respondents to determine the claims of the said employees who were members of the petitioner association. The respondents have however, further not disputed that ownership and management of Salt Works of Sambhar and Deedwana in Rajasthan and Kharaghoda in Maharashtra at Bombay were transferred to Hindustan Salt Company Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 1.1.1959 vide letter No. 18.3.1958-Salt dated 27.12.58 and letter of even number dated 31.1.59 of the Ministry of Commerce. The entire regular staff, both permanent and temporary, who were in, position in the Govt. Salt Works at Sambhar, Deedwana and Kharadhoda, were', placed at the services of the Company (respondent No. 4) for a period of six months in terms of para 1(5) of the two aforesaid letters. The work-charge and seasonal staff were transferred enblock to the Company. The terms and conditions of the services of these employees were regulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide letter No. 6/9/58-Salt dated 2.2.59. The copies of the aforesaid relevant correspondents which has been placed on the record has been perused by me. It has further been admitted that the work charged staff of Salt Power House of Sambhar Lake were also transferred enblock to the Company subject to the same terms and conditions of service as applicable to them earlier in their parent Department. 7. With regard to the service conditions as admissible to the regular staff permanent as well as temporary, it has been contended that the said staff was placed at the disposal of the Company initially for a period of six months and the said period was extended from time to time till they were finally absorbed in the services of the company. The terms of conditions of services of the Salt Department of the staff who were on regular pay rules and those who were transferred to Hindustan Salts Ltd. was decided by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide its letter dated July 2, 1963 which was subsequently, modified by the relevant document on the record. 8. I have perused the relevant correspondence on the record and also heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. However, since the respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioner to payment of pension, Provident Fund and other post retiral benefits on the ground that since they were work charged employee who were absorbed by the respondent-Company in the year 1959 and since the said employees who retired from service of the company from time to time have already been extended the benefits of Provident Fund, it is not correct to say that they were not given option and therefore, they have been denied any benefit. It has further been contended that the scheme of Provident Fund and Pension are two independent schemes and even under the Central Government service the employees who receive benefits of contributory provident fund are not entitled to pension and those who are paid from contingency funds are also not entitled to pension. The two schemes are mutually exclusive and not inter dependent on each other. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. During the course of hearing, a preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that since the petitioner-association is not registered and hence, it is not within the scope of the said association to espouse the cause of its members who were erstwhile employees of the M/s. Sambhar Lake Salts a subsidiary of M/s. Hindustan Salts and in absence of the specific details of the said members who retired from services of the Company on attaining the age of superannuation, it is not possibly for the respondent to assess their claims. Consequently, I gave a direction vide order dated 21 Feb., 1997 during the course of hearing of this petition by which the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to give specific details of the employees of the petitioner-association, their date of joining and retirement from service with complete particulars and counsel for the petitioner was further directed to ascertain the latest position in this regard from the authorised signatory of the petitioner association who has filed this writ petition and obtained the latest and complete particulars by filing the comprehensive list with supporting the affidavits of the petitioner after serving advance copy of the same on the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. In support of his contention advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments of this court as well as the Apex Court: 1. State of Rajasthan v. Retired Contributory Provident Fund Holders Association Jodhpur, 1987 WLN 476. 2. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983(1) SCC 305 . 3. Krishna Kumar v. Union of India, 1990(4) S.C.C. 207 . 4. State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, 1990(3) S.C.C. 436 . 11. The questions of law which do arise for determination of this Court in this Writ petition are as under : 1. Whether the obligation of the State can be curtailed or channelised in a manner so as to restrict the benefits of pension or C.P.R only to the permanent employees of the Company which is State under taking and not to extend the benefits of the same to the temporary or work charged employees of the said undertaking who have already rendered more than the qualifying period of service for their entitlement to the said benefits, particularly when they have remained temporary or work charged during the entire tenure of their employment for no fault of theirs and not made permanent for reasons best known to the management ? 2. Whether it is open to the respondent M/s. Sambhar Lake Salt Ltd. which is a subsidiary of Hindustan Salts Ltd. and which is a Govt. 2. Whether it is open to the respondent M/s. Sambhar Lake Salt Ltd. which is a subsidiary of Hindustan Salts Ltd. and which is a Govt. of India enterprise to deprive the consequential benefits such as pension, gratuity and benefits admissible to its employees under the central provident fund scheme who have retired from the services of the said undertaking on attaining the age of superannuation on the ground that since they have already opted for the benefits under the C.P.F. scheme, they are not entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits ? 3. Whether the imposition of such a condition as aforesaid would stand the test of reasonable classification having any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it as not being grossly discriminatory and being violative of Articles 14 & 16 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India as tantamount to depriving the basic means of right to livelihood which is an integral part of right to life and liberty for the reason that no such discrimination is constitutionally permissible between the permanent and temporary work charged employees who have already completed qualifying period of service under the rules for their entitlement to such benefits and which cannot be legitimately deprived to them under the rules of the Company ? 12. In the matter of State of Rajasthan v. C.P.F. Holder's Association, Jodhpur (supra) in D.B. Special appeal preferred against the Order of the learned single Judge of the said High Court dated 3.9.85 passed in a writ petition, an objection was raised by the State Govt. that the members of the respondent association were not entitled to the pensionary association were not entitled to the pensionary benefits since they had already opted for C.P.F. scheme. Beneficiaries of C.P.F. scheme had earlier made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for an opportunity of exercising fresh option for pension. It was contended on their behalf that the denial of the said benefits amounted to hostile discrimination being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the principles initiated by the Apex Court in the matter of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Vidya Bhushan Malik reported in 1984(3) SCC 95 . The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the principles initiated by the Apex Court in the matter of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Vidya Bhushan Malik reported in 1984(3) SCC 95 . Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, the learned Division Bench of this Court come to the conclusion, as under : "Applying the principle propounded in the above referred case, to the present case it can safely be said that merely because the aggrieved Members of the respondent Association had not opted pension at a particular time in view of the then prevailing circumstances, they cannot be estopped from claiming the right to opt for pension subsequently in the changed circumstances when the others, similarly situated, have been placed in an advantageous position by virtue of Exh. 5 and 7. The fixing of dates in those Circulars has no rationale with the object sought to be achieved." 13. In the matter of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (supra) it was held by the Apex Court that pension is neither a bounty nor a grace but an incidence of service which is admissible to the retiring employees and which the employees must get on the eve of their attaining the age of superannuation. 14. In the matter of Krishna Kumar v. Union of India (Supra) the substantial question of law which had arisen for consideration of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court was as to whether the option given to the retired employee of the railways who were covered or who had opted for railway contributory provident fund scheme to switch over the pension scheme w.e.f. specified cut of date was had in law being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India ? It was held by the Apex Court that the aforesaid Scheme could not be held to be discriminatory since the Provident Fund retirees and pension retirees did not belong to one and the same class and therefore there was no discrimination. It was open to the said employees to opt for either of the two schemes i.e. either Contributory Provident Fund or Pension Scheme. 15. It was open to the said employees to opt for either of the two schemes i.e. either Contributory Provident Fund or Pension Scheme. 15. In the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioners Samaj (Supra), similar controversy had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. It was held by the Apex Court that CPF scheme and pension Scheme as admissible to the employees conform to different classes and CPF employees and those employees who have already been extended CPF benefit cannot as on right switch over to pension scheme and get benefit granted to pension scheme retirees. It was further held that if such employees are willing to fore go the benefits admissible under CPF Scheme, they can exercised then option for Pensionary benefits but they are not entitled as of right for both. 16. In my view the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court as well as of this Court is fully attracted to the instant case. I am of considered opinion that members of the petitioner Association are not entitled for benefits under both the Schemes viz.; CPF as well as Pension and hence they have to surrender or claim adjustment of the benefits under the CPF Scheme if they want to exercise their option for Pensionary benefits. They cannot ask for pensionary benefits since that both the schemes are independent and not correlated to each other. Prima-facie, l am of the considered opinion that the members of the petitioner-Association who have already received C.PF. benefits cannot as a matter of right also, claim the benefit of pension scheme and they will have to choose between either of the two i.e. either C.P.F. or Pension and they will have to fore go one. Hence, it will be proper and desirable to invite options from those members of the petitioner association as to whether they have received benefits under the CPF scheme and if they have received the same from the company, they shall be entitled to exercise their option under the pension scheme subject to the condition that they shall either refund the provident fund amount or be entitled to claim adjustment against the pensionary benefits to which they may be entitled in accordance with the rules. 17. 17. In view of the above discussion, I am consequently of the view that those members of the petitioner association who have themselves sought adjustment of the benefits under the C.P.F. scheme as against the pensionary benefits to which they may be entitled in accordance with the rules, the amount of C.RE which they have already drawn from the Company is directed to be adjusted against the arrears of pension which shall be, reckoned from the date of their retirement from service while the remaining amount as admissible to them shall be released by the Company in their favour in accordance with the rules. 18. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 28.3.97, a comprehensive list of the employees who were on the rolls of the Company was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same was taken on record vide annexure R\3\10 dated 7.1.95. From the perusal of the said documents it is apparent that out of 113 work charged ex- employees of the Company, the details of only 75 employees could be ascertained while that of 38 remaining employees could not be ascertained for the reason that their particulars were not recorded in their service book. The said list contains relevant details of the erstwhile employees of the Company who have since already retired from the services of the Company on different dates on attaining the age of superannuation. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended at the bar that the aforesaid employees of the Company were earlier in services of Salt Power House and by the order of the Salt Commissioner dated 5.1.59, they were transferred to M/s. Hindustan Salt Ltd. and absorbed in the services of the Company on same terms and conditions as applicable to them in M/s. Hindustan Salts as on 7.1.2.62 and 4.1.63 respectively. He has further contended that they are entitled to be governed by the same terms and conditions for pension, provident fund and other consequential benefits as admissible to them when they were in service of M/s. Salts Power House by the order of Salt Commissioner as aforesaid. 19. He has further contended that they are entitled to be governed by the same terms and conditions for pension, provident fund and other consequential benefits as admissible to them when they were in service of M/s. Salts Power House by the order of Salt Commissioner as aforesaid. 19. In the premises I would like to observe that at the outlet it is the obligation of the State to extend the pensionary benefits in accordance with the scheme formulated and adopted by the Management of respondent No. 4 viz.; Sambhar Salt Ltd. which is a subsidiary of M/s. Hindustan Salt Ltd. (respondent no. 3) in view of the fact that the erstwhile employees of the petitioners- Association who have consequent upon there demitting their respective offices on attaining the age of superannuation are entitled to lead their retiral life with dignity and cannot be deprived of their means of livelihood, since the right to live with dignity has been recognised as an integral and essential part of Article 21. of the Constitution of India and any discrimination made by the Respondent in this regard with the said employees quo serving employees of the respondents shall be discriminatory and would obviously amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondents have statutory obligations to extend `all consequential benefits such as pension, gratuity, CPF, etc. to its employees both, serving as well as those who have already retired from service on the ground that since they have already rendered qualifying period of service whether permanent or temporary are entitled to equal consequential benefits and cannot be discriminated on this score. 20. 1 may further add that those employees of the petitioner association who have already opted for C.P.F. scheme and received benefit of the same on their demitting office of the said Company should be called upon by the respondents by way of a communication as to whether they would like to continue with the benefits of the C.P.F. scheme which they have already obtained or would like to seek adjustment of the same as against the pensionary benefits as admissible under the Rules of the Company, since in my considered opinion they are not entitled to have benefit of the both simultaneously and in case they want to have pensionary benefits, they have to fore go the other or vice-versa. 21. 21. To conclude, I am of the view that it is not open to M/s. Sambhar Salts Ltd. to deprive the members of the petitioners association of the aforesaid consequential benefits as admissible to them, since it is subsidiary of M/s. Hindustan Salts Ltd. (respondent No. 3), which is a Govt. of India undertaking and hence an instrumentality of the State exercising powers on behalf of the sovereign under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition is consequently allowed with the direction to the respondents to release the consequential benefits as admissible to the members of the petitioners' association as per details of the said employees appended to the writ petition and which the President/Secretary of the said Association shall furnish to the respondents No. 3 and 4, respectively positively within a period of four weeks from today who were in the employment of respondent No. 4 with complete particulars when they retired from service of respondent No. 4 on attaining the age of superannuation and options should be invited from the said employees as to whether they would like to retain the CPF which they have already received or would like to fore go the same in the lieu of the pensionary benefits and the said options should be exercised by the said employees within a period of four weeks thereafter. After the options are received by the respondent No. 4, it shall be obligatory upon the said respondent to release the benefits as per their options within a period of four weeks thereafter.There will be no order as to costs.Writ petition Allowed With Direction to Release Consequential Benefits as Admissible as Per Details Appended to Petition - Other Incidental Directions Given - no Order as to Costs. *******