Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 6 (KER)

S. Janardhanan Nair v. State of Kerala

2000-01-04

S.SANKARASUBBAN

body2000
Judgment :- Petitioners were the employees of the Service Co-operative Bank incorporated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. They have retired from service. First petitioner retired on 31-8-1990 while the fourth petitioner retired on 31-5-1992. The second petitioner retired on 25-3-1992 and the third petitioner retired on 31-5-1993. So far as the employees of the Co-operative Societies in Kerala are concerned, there was no scheme for payment of pension when they retire from service. At the time of retirement, they were getting only an amount from the contributory Provident Fund. In order to give some sort of help and financial assistance in the post retirement part of the life of the employees in the Co-operative Department, the first respondent decided to introduce a pension scheme. A draft scheme was prepared. Options and suggestions were invited and a draft scheme was published as Ext. P1. Ext. P1 in dated 30-6-1991. It is stated that the scheme will be introduced with effect from 1-7-1990., Thereafter, the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self-Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 dated 14-3-1995 was introduced; copy of which is produced as Ext. P-2. But it has been given effect only from 3rd June, 1993. All the petitioners retired before 3rd June, 1993. Hence, they were not entitled to the benefit of Ext. P-2 scheme. According to the petitioners, the fixation of 3-6-1993 as the cut off date is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners' raised the contention that the fixation of the cut off date as 3-6-1993 is arbitrary. Further, it is stated that the draft scheme gave the date as 1-7-1990 and on that basis many persons voluntarily retired. By extending the benefit up to the persons, who retired after 1-7-1990 no monetary loss is caused to the Government. Hence, the Original Petition is filed to quash Clause (2) of Ext. P-2, which gives the date of coming into force of the scheme as 3-6-1993 and to direct the respondents to give effect to Ext. P-2 from 1-7-1990.A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. In the counter-affidavit, the issue of Ext. P-1 is admitted. It is stated that it is by amending Section 80 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act as Section 80A that the pension scheme was introduced. P-2 from 1-7-1990.A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. In the counter-affidavit, the issue of Ext. P-1 is admitted. It is stated that it is by amending Section 80 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act as Section 80A that the pension scheme was introduced. Section 80A of the above Act was brought into force with effect from 3-6-1993 by the Ordinance 6 of 1993. That is why the date 3-6-1993 was given as the cut off date. Further, it is stated that there is no discrimination or mala fide in fixing the date. The mentioning of the date, 1-4-1990, in Ext. P-1 does not give the petitioners any vested right. Since there was no pension scheme prior to that date, it was open to the Government to fix a cut off date. A counter-affidavit was also filed on behalf of the third respondent - Chairman, Kerala Co-operative Employees Pension Board, Trivandrum. It is stated in that counter-affidavit that Ext. P1 is only a tentative decision, Government determined to implement the scheme with effect from 3-6-1993. It is the prerogative of the Government to prescribe the appointed date. It also states that the scheme could be brought into force only after the amendment of the Co-operative Societies Act. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the decisions in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assn. v. Union of India 1992 Supp 1 SCC 664 : (1992 Lab IC 633), D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 1 SCC 305 : (1983 Lab IC 1) and Kasturi v. Managing Director, State of Bank of India, 1999 2 Ker LT SN 15 Case No. 15 : (1998 Lab IC 3579). I heard counsel for the petitioners and respondents. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that no grounds have been made by the petitioners to allow the writ petition. It is the admitted case that the there was no pension scheme prior to Ext. P2. In that context, the Government is at liberty to fix a cut off date for bringing into force the pension scheme. There is no allegation of any mala fide or bias. The only contention raised is that in Ext. P1 scheme, the date was put as 1-7-1990. P2. In that context, the Government is at liberty to fix a cut off date for bringing into force the pension scheme. There is no allegation of any mala fide or bias. The only contention raised is that in Ext. P1 scheme, the date was put as 1-7-1990. So far as this aspect is concerned, the mere fact that a date has been put in the draft scheme does not give any right to the petitioners. Further till the introduction of Section 80A, the Government did not have the power to bring out a pension scheme for the employees. The amending Section came into force only on 3-6-1993. Hence, the Government could not bring into force the pension scheme from a date prior to 3-6-1993.In this context, it is pertinent to note the following observations of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assn. v. Union of India, 1992 Supp 1 SCC 664 : (1992 Lab IC 633) (Para 10). "However, a distinction has to be drawn between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalised form and introduction of a wholly new scheme, in the case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a cut off date would ordinarily violate the principles of equality in treatment unless there is a strong rationale discrenible for so doing and the same can be supported on the ground the it will subserve the object sought to be achieved. But in the case of a new scheme, in respect whereof the retired employees have no vested right, the employer can restrict the same to certain class of retiree having regard to the fact situation in which it came to be introduced, the extent of additional financial burden that it will throw, the capacity of the employer to bear the same, the feasibility or extending the scheme to all retirees regardless of the dates of their retirement, the availability of records of every retiree, etc. In the present case no attempt has been made by the petitioners to contend that the fixation of the cut off date is arbitrary. In the present case no attempt has been made by the petitioners to contend that the fixation of the cut off date is arbitrary. The position in the decision D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 1 SCC 305 : 1998 Lab IC 1) is distinguishable because that case involve classification of those who are already entitled to pensionary benefits. The decision in Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India 1999 2 Ker LT SN 15 Case No. 15 : (1998 Lab IC 3579) is also of no help to the petitioners. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through he records and also the decisions, I am of the view that clause (2) in Ext. P2 fixing the date as 6-6-1993 is not arbitrary. Original Petition dismissed.Petition dismissed.