| Headnote |
Service law: Himachal Pradesh Government Corporate Sector Employees Pension (family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme' 1999 - Pension scheme - Wilhdrawal of - Scheme of 1999 not financially viable - Repeal of 1999 Scheme vide Notification dated 02.12.2004 - Legalily of - Held: Notification dated 2.12.2004 is legal and constitulional - It cannot be said /hat the notification was unconstitutional, irrational, arbitrary or unreasonable - Scheme of 1999 created a contingent right in the employees of corporate bodies, who had opted for 'the 1999 Scheme ', immediately on its having been introduced; all those, who were deemed to have opted; and all those appointed after the introduction of 'the 1999 Scheme' - There was no employer and employees relationship between the State Government and employees -All the corporate bodies in which employees were/are engaged, are independent juristic entities - Thus, the claim raised by employees fm· pension, is not based on any right or obligation be/ween the parties - No right can· be stated to have been violated u/Arts. 14, 16, 21 and 300A - Further, the action of the State Government, was well within its authority and was based on due consideration - Repealing of the Scheme was a policy decision jailing in lhe realm of executive determination and 110 court has any role therein - Administrative law - Policy decision Scheme of 1999 - Cut-off date postulated by Slate Government, whereby some of the employees governed by 1999 Scheme (/hose who had retired prior lo 2.12.2004) 11•ere entitled lo draw pension under the 1999 Scheme, whereas others, who had not retired by the time the repeal notification was issued on 2.12.2004, were deprived of such benefits - Justification of - Held: Cut-off date has been upheld for extending better and higher pensionary benefits, based on the financial health of the employer - Cut-off date can therefore, legitimately be prescribed for extending pensionary benefits, if the funds available cannot assuage the liability, to all the existing pensioners - Thus, it is well within the authority of the State Government, in exercise of its administrative B . powers, to fix a cut-off date, for continuing the right to receive pens.ion in some, and depriving some others. c D E F G Scheme of 1999 - Right to pension under, whether a vested right - Held: As soon as the concerned employees came to be governed by 'the 1999 Scheme', a contingent right came to be vested in them, on the date when 'the 1999 Scheme' became operational, or to the direct entrants who entered service thereafter - Said contingent right created a right in the employees to claim pension, at the time of their retirement - Said right :would crystalise only upon the fulfillment of the postulated conditions, on having rendered, the postulated qualifying service - However, once such a contingent right was created, every such employee, could not be prevented from fulfilling the postulated conditions, to claim pension. Principle of estoppel/promissory estoppel - Applicability of - When original position (the rights enjoyed by the employees, under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995) available before 'the 1999 Scheme' was given effect to, has actually been restored - Held: Principle of estoppel/promissory estoppel is not applicable. Constitution of India - Art. 21 - 1999 Scheme, whether violative of Art. 21 - Held: Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1995, was sought to be replaced, by 'the 1999 Scheme'- 1999 Scheme' was an effort at the behest of the State Government, to provide still better retiral benefits - 1999 Scheme' was not a measure, aimed at providing basic human rights - Thus, 'the 1999 Scheme' cannot be treated as irreversible - Repealing of 'the 1999 Scheme 'cannot be deemed to have in any manner, violated the. right of the employees, u/Art. 21 - After the repeal notification dated 2.12.2004, the erstwhile Scheme of 1995, has been restored to such of the employees, who were impacted by the said repeal notification. |
