Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re.: Shri Purnendu Prakash Das & ... vs Union Of India And Others on 17 July, 2015
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
18 17.07.2015
rpan Ct. No.17 W.P.C.T. No. 114 of 2015
In Re.: Shri Purnendu Prakash Das & Others
- Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India and Others
- Respondents
Mr. P. K. Munsi .... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee ... For the Respondent No.1.
Mrs. Sukla Das Chanda ... For the Respondents No.2 & 3.
This petition has been preferred by the Petitioners contending that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Calcutta Bench on 24th April, 2015 in CPC 350/00241/2014.
The Petitioners were employed with the Respondents initially as casual employees. They were then treated as temporary employees pursuant to the Scheme of 10th September, 1993 framed by the DOPT. The Respondents introduced a new pension scheme on 1st January, 2004 and made it applicable to the Petitioners. Under this pension scheme the Respondents refused to deduct the contribution for the General Provident Fund from the salary to the employees.
Aggrieved by this decision of the Respondents the Petitioners preferred OA- 350/00015/2014.
Similar applications had been filed before the various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in the present application has held that the Petitioners are not 2 covered by the new pension scheme and that the Respondents should continue to deduct the General Provident Fund (GPF) from them. This would mean, therefore, that the Petitioners would be covered by the old pension scheme.
The Respondents then aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal preferred WPCT No.46 of 2015. By an order dated 4th March, 2015 the writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. While dismissing the writ petition the Division Bench held thus:
"From the records we find that the applicants before the learned Tribunal namely, the respondents herein were appointed as casual labourers and had acquired temporary status in terms of the earlier DOPT scheme and were allowed the GPF benefits w.e.f. 1st September, 1996. The new pension scheme cannot apply of the respondents herein since they undisputedly, acquired temporary status being appointed long before 1st January, 2004. The new pension scheme also made it clear that the same applies in respect of the persons appointed to the Central Government service on or after 1st January, 2004."
GPF contributions were deducted from the Petitioners' salary in view of the order issued by Respondent No.3 on 19th March, 2015. Petitioner No.1 retired from service on 30th April, 2015 and he was not paid pension in accordance with the old pension scheme.
Aggrieved by that decision, which according to the Petitioners, amounted to contempt of the Tribunal, they filed CPC 350/00241/2014. By an order dated 24th April, 2015 the 3 Tribunal observed that since the compliance report has been submitted there is no further need for any adjudication in the matter.
The Petitioners have approached this Court against the order passed by the Tribunal in the contempt application.
The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioners were employed as casual employees and, therefore, they have not been paid pension on retirement. She further submits that the order of the Tribunal passed in the original application only directs payment of deduction of GPF contributions and does not speak about payment of pension. According to the learned Counsel that since the employees were casual workers they are not entitled to pension.
The Tribunal while deciding the original application has observed that the Respondents have "neither specifically nor evasively denied that the applicants had acquired temporary status in terms of 10.09.1993 DOPT Scheme and were allowed GPF benefits w.e.f. 1.9.1996." Since the Petitioners had acquired temporary status they would be entitled to pension under the old pension rules depending on the number of years of service they had to their credit.
The Respondents will, therefore, have to pay the Petitioners pension in accordance with the old pension scheme and deduct GPF contributions accordingly from their salary. 4
The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The petition is allowed. However, we do not wish to take any action in contempt against the Respondents as the non- payment was as a result of a misinterpretation of the order of the Tribunal which we do not find was deliberate act of Respondent No.3.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities as expeditiously as possible.
(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Asha Arora, J.)