Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1140 (MP)

Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya Employees Association, Bhopal v. Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya Samiti

2010-11-16

R.K.GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT R.K. Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner, an Association of the employees working in the Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, has filed this writ petition praying for a relief to command the respondents to continue to grant retirement benefits under GPF-cum-Pension Gratuity Scheme to all its employees to which they are entitled as per their service rules/conditions and to restrain the respondents from introducing C.P.F. Scheme in respect of all such employees. The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the order of reference dated 12.9.1997 (Annexure P-13) and order dated 23.5.2001 (Annexure P-17). 2. The facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioners are the members of the Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya Samiti which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act XXI of 1860). By a notification dated 6.4.1985 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Government of India, Department of Culture, the said Society was formed and registered in the year 1985 with the object to take over the administration and management of the National Museum of Man, Bhopal which was subordinate to the Department of Culture, Government of India. Thus, Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, is an autonomous organization governed by the Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya Samiti with effect 15.3.1985. In pursuance of the said Notification, a circular dated 1.5.1985 (Annexure P-3) was issued whereby the services of the employees of National Museum of Man were handed over to Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. All the employees opted to be absorbed in the services of the Samiti. 3. At the time of absorption of the employees in the services of the Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya Samiti the employees were governed by the service conditions applicable to the employees of the Government of India and they were also entitled to retirement benefits including pension and GPF, etc. According to the petitioners, even the service rules framed by the respondent No. 1, Samiti, provided for retirement benefits to the employees and in this regard the petitioners along with the writ petition have filed the relevant extract of the service rules being SSR-23 as Annexure P-4 to the petition. According to the petitioners, even the service rules framed by the respondent No. 1, Samiti, provided for retirement benefits to the employees and in this regard the petitioners along with the writ petition have filed the relevant extract of the service rules being SSR-23 as Annexure P-4 to the petition. It is stated that at present the employees of different cadres are working in the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal and general provident fund pass books (Annexures P-10 and P-11) have also been issued to Group 'D' employees and contributions in the GPF account for all the remaining employees is being regularly deducted from their salary by the respondent No. 1 Samiti even till-date. It is revealed that out of the employees working in the said Sangrahalaya, 17 were already in service when the Society was constituted. On this basis, it is contended that the petitioner-employees are also entitled to the retirement benefits as per the Central Government rules as prevalent at that time. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited my attention to the letter dated 12.9.1997 (Annexure P-13) addressed to the then President of the petitioner-Association whereby it was informed that the Ministry of Finance Government of India has recommended that C.P.F. Scheme may be introduced for the employees of the Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. It is submitted that the petitioner-Association has made several representations to the respondents protesting against the contemplated withdrawal of GPF-cum-Pension Gratuity Scheme and introduction of C.P.F. Scheme but there has been no response. However, it is submitted that the GPF is still being deducted from the salaries of the employees. Counsel for the petitioner has also alleged discrimination and favouritism against the respondents inasmuch one similarly situated employee, namely, Shri Naval Jaiswal who stood retired as Assistant Curator was accorded with the pensionary benefits which has also been approved by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Culture vide order dated 23.5.2001, Annexure P-17. Counsel for the petitioner has also alleged discrimination and favouritism against the respondents inasmuch one similarly situated employee, namely, Shri Naval Jaiswal who stood retired as Assistant Curator was accorded with the pensionary benefits which has also been approved by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Culture vide order dated 23.5.2001, Annexure P-17. It is further contended that in case the prevailing GPF-cum-Pension Gratuity Scheme is withdrawn and CPF scheme is introduced in the Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya the same would result in detriment to the interest of the employees and once the petitioners were forced to act upon the representations made by the respondents promising that they would be entitled to retirement benefits under the GPF-cum-Pension Gratuity Scheme then the respondents are bound to fulfill such promises and they have no right to discontinue the said scheme. 5. The petitioners have also filed an application for taking additional documents on record. These documents relate to the information provided by certain institutions which are similar to Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya Samiti under the same Ministry, namely, Allahabad Muserum, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Library Foundations, Kolkata, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi. As per the said documents, all these institutions are still persisting with the pension scheme for the benefits of their employees similarly placed with the petitioners herein but the petitioners alone are deprived of the same benefits for no justifiable reason. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the employees who were working in the National Museum" of Man were Central Government employees. Out of them 17 employees who were working in National Museum of Man had opted for permanent absorption in the autonomous body, namely, Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya and their options were accepted. The conditions of retirement benefits /pensionary benefits of the service rendered by the employees in the Central Government who were transferred to Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya are governed by the order of Government of India O.M. No. 4(8)/85-P and PW dated 13.1.1986 read with BOP and OM No. 4-18/87 P&PW (D) dated 5.6.1989 and Notification No. 4-61/99 PW(D) which are filed by the respondents along with their return as Annexures R/l, R/2 and R/3. It is further contended that the employees who are employed by Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya are governed by the staff service rules framed by the said Samiti which was competent to frame the said rules and the Department of Culture has not agreed to induction of pension, GPF and gratuity benefits in the autonomous organization of Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, therefore, the petitioners who are employed by the said Samiti after its formation are not eligible to be governed by the pension and other benefits as compared to the employees of Central Government. 7. It is seen that there are two categories of employees in Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. First of them comprises of the employees who were appointed in the erstwhile National Museum of Man and transferred to Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya and the second category is of the employees i.e. the petitioners who were appointed by Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the SSR-23 of the Service Rules relating to Retirement Benefits which are contained in Annexure P-4. Sub-clause (a) of the same relates to Eligibility which provides that an employee other than borrowed employee, shall be eligible to retirement benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-Gratuity Scheme. Similarly, sub-clause (b) of the SSR 23 specifically provides that till such time the scheme is framed and enforced, the present arrangement of maintaining, G.P.F. by P.A.O. Department of Culture, New Delhi will continue. In pursuance of the same, at the time of absorption, the employees as such were entitled to the retirement benefits as per the Central Government rules prevalent at that time. A plain reading of Annexures P-10, P-11 and P-12 would reveal that the GPF contributions of the petitioners have been regularly deducted and even the Assistant Accounts Officer, Department of Culture, Government of India, Pay and Accounts Office, New Delhi has issued the annual statement of the GPF account in this regard which is Annexure P-11 to the petition. It clear means that the GPF contributions have been deducted by the respondents from the salaries of the petitioners with a view to provide retrial benefits. 8. It may be noted here that there is only a proposal/recommendation to withdraw the GPF-cum-Pension Gratuity Scheme and introducing the CPF scheme. It clear means that the GPF contributions have been deducted by the respondents from the salaries of the petitioners with a view to provide retrial benefits. 8. It may be noted here that there is only a proposal/recommendation to withdraw the GPF-cum-Pension Gratuity Scheme and introducing the CPF scheme. No formal or final order for withdrawal of the GPF-cum-Pension Gratuity Scheme has been passed till-date and the GPF deductions are still being deducted from the salaries of the petitioners. The service conditions as such are in existence right from the beginning. Therefore, in absence of any final order to withdraw the GPF-cum-Pension Gratuity Scheme and to introduce the CPF scheme the provision of GPF deductions and retrial benefits, which was already in existence on basis of SSR-23 service rules for the benefits of the employees of the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal, the retrial benefit as such cannot be curbed only on basis of the recommendations to introduce the new scheme without any justifiable reasons. 9. Moreover, the petitioners have also annexed a document dated 23.5.2001, Annexure P-17 to the petition, whereby one Shri Naval Jaiswal, retired Assistant Curator of the respondents who was already in service when the Sangrahalaya was taken over by the respondent No. 1 and who retired in October 1995 was provided the pensionary benefits, which has been approved by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Culture. It is also observed that the petitioners have filed certain documents along with the application for taking documents on record. These documents have been provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the institutions which are similar to the Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya Samiti controlled by the same Ministry of Culture. A bare perusal of the these letters reveals that the Allahabad Museum became an autonomous organization under the aegis of Ministry of Culture w.e.f. 6.9.1985 and the employees working in the said department are having retirement benefits, pension scheme of the Government. Similar information has been provided by Raja Rammohun Roy Library Foundation which is also established by Department of Culture, Government of India that the Foundations as such provides the usual retirement benefits like GPF, Gratuity and Pension to its employees. Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi on the query made by the petitioner has also confirmed that it follows pension scheme of Government of India. Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi on the query made by the petitioner has also confirmed that it follows pension scheme of Government of India. Counsel appearing for the respondents have not been able to offer any justification about the discrimination as to why the petitioners have been deprived of the retirement benefits while the retirement benefits are being given to the employees working in the similar set of departments under the Ministry of Culture. No justification is shown by the respondents as to why they have sanctioned the retirement benefits to the employees who are similarly situated working in Allahabad Museum and the aforesaid institutions and what is the justification not to provide same benefits to the petitioners who are similarly placed with. It was for the respondents to have shown some reasons. The petitioners being employees similarly placed with other institutions as stated above under the Ministry of Culture are entitled to parity with them. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to allow the present petition and quash the order dated 12.9.1997 (Annexure P-13). Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and the employees of the Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal to grant retirement benefits which are prevailing in Allahabad Museum and other institutions as referred to above and accordingly pass necessary orders in terms to the letters filed by the petitioners along with the application for taking documents on record in relation to Allahabad Museum and other institutions referred to above. In the result, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.