Madras High Court
G.Renganathan vs Pay And Accounts Officer on 1 June, 2023
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.No.8071 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.8071 of 2012
W.M.P.No.2109 of 2018
G.Renganathan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Pay and Accounts Officer
Central Pension Accounting Office,
Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
New Delhi 110 066
2. The Regional Director (Food), Southern Region,
Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006
3. Pay and Accounts Officer,
Ministry of Food, Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006
4. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
“Vivekananda House”,
Triplicane, Chennai 600 005 ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the third respondent made in PAO(F) / CH/PEN/R109 (R) / 57/10-
11/945-950 dated 27.10.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-
est in law and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the pension of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 39
W.P.No.8071 of 2012
the petitioner as per V and VI Pay Commission Reports correspondingly with
effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively and in terms of the
Section 12A(4)(b) r/w 12A(4)(c) of the F.C.I. Act with all consequent benefits
arising thereof.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 22.09.2020 made in WMP.No.20699 of
2019 in WP.No.8071 of 2012 by SVNJ)
For Petitioner : Mr.M.B.Gopalan & Associates
and Mr.M.B.Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr.Venkataswamy Babu,
Senior Panel Counsel for R1 & 2
: Mr.K.Mohanamurali,
Senior Panel Counsel for R3
: Mr.K.Chandrasekaran for R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the third respondent made in PAO(F) / CH/PEN/R109 (R) / 57/10-11/945-950 dated 27.10.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law and consequently, direct the respondents to enhance the pension of the petitioner as per V and VI Pay Commission Reports correspondingly with effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively and in terms of the Section 12A(4)(b) r/w 12A(4)(c) of the FCI Act with all consequent benefits arising thereof. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as under:-
2.1 On 01.10.1957, the petitioner joined as Tally Clerk/Godown Clerk in the office of the Assistant Director of Food Department, Government of India at Chennai. In 1965, he was deputed/transferred to serve in the Food Corporation of India in his capacity as Central Government Employee.
Initially, he was designated as Assistant Grade III and by gradual promotion, he became Assistant Grade I and in that capacity, he retired from service on 31.07.1992.
2.2 Initially, he was sanctioned a pension of Rs.1,202/-. By proceedings dated 27.02.1997, the 1st Respondent revised the basic pension to Rs.1,644/- with effect from 01.08.1992. Pursuant to this, the 4th Respondent paid the arrears also. In the same order, it was fixed that after commutation, the take home pension would be Rs.1,096/- plus dearness allowance. It was this pension he was drawing till an audit objection was raised by letter dated 30.03.1999 by the Senior Audit Officer, Office of the Accountant General (Audit 1) Tamilnadu & Pondicherry, Chennai - 600 035.
2.3 Pursuant to the order dated 27.02.1997 passed by the 1st Respondent, his pension was fixed at Rs.1096/- per month plus allowances. Based on the standing orders on the recommendation of fifth pay commission https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 and Government of India orders and in December 1997, they fixed a pension of Rs.5,047/- as total amount payable to him. It was revised from time to time and till February 1999, the total amount paid to him was Rs.5,493/- per month.
2.4 It was only in the first week of April 1999, when he went to draw his pension, the 4th Respondent made entry of pension as Rs.1,801/- (reduced pension of Rs.1,096/-plus I.D.A. for Rs.705/-). When he questioned the same, the 4th Respondent informed him that it was based on Audit objection issued by the Senior Audit Officer, Office of the Accountant General (Audit I), Chennai-35. Therefore, challenging the order dated 30.03.1999 issued by the Senior Audit Officer, he filed W.P. No.9535 of 1999 which was allowed on 07.12.1999 setting aside the impugned order therein with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders after issuing show cause notice to him.
2.5 Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 13.04.2000 and he submitted his explanation on 02.05.2000. Since no orders were passed, he filed Cont. P. No.336 of 2000 and after receiving notice in the contempt application, the respondents' counsel furnished an order dated 17.08.2000 wherein his basic pay - part of pension has been correctly fixed whereas the dearness allowance portion has been erroneously fixed on the alleged Industrial Dearness https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 Allowance (hereinafter referred to as I.D.A.) pattern, instead of Central Dearness Allowance (hereinafter referred to as C.D.A.) which alone is applicable to him as per Section 12-A (4) (b), r/w 12-A (4) (c).
2.6 The same was challenged in W.P.No.17378 of 2000 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 27.11.2002. As against the same, he filed W.A. No.124 of 2003. In the meantime, similarly situated persons like him had filed various writ petitions before various High Courts. The writ petitions were allowed by the respective Hon'ble High Courts and the appeal filed by the Department was also dismissed. The challenge made by the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also ended in dismissal on 10.02.2010 confirming the order of the High Courts, wherein the Hon'ble High Courts gave a finding that the employees are entitled to receive all the benefits of the Central Government Employees and also further declared that in view of the option exercised, persons like him are treated as Central Government Employees. Based on the same, the Writ Appeal filed by him was also allowed by this Court on 13.04.2010.
2.7 Even thereafter, since the respondents did not comply with the orders of this Court, he filed Contempt Application No.1014 of 2010 which was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 closed on 24.03.2011 observing that no case has been made out for contempt and if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he should approach the appropriate forum for appropriate reliefs.
2.8 Since the respondent has not refixed the pension corresponding to the V and VI Pay Commission Reports with effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 12.01.2012 requesting them to enhance the pension as per V and VI Pay Commission reports in terms of Section 12 A (4) (b) (r) 12 A (4)
(c). Earlier, his pension was enhanced as per V Pay commission and arrears had also been paid before the impugned order in the earlier writ petition dated 17.08.2000, which has been issued on the basis of audit objection, which has been set aside by this Court. In the pension order Book, the Pay & Accounts Office, Chennai, has rightly mentioned the class of pension as Superannuation Pension as per the Central Civil Service Pension Rules and still, there is balance amount of Rs.9,28,059/- as on 31.12.2011 and hence, the present writ petition for the relief as stated above.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined Food Corporation of India in the year 1965 and opted for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 Central Rules under Section 12A (4) (b) of Food Corporation of India Act 1964 and he has superannuated on 31.07.1992 and was receiving the pension as per the Central Rules from the year 1992 to 1999. The petitioner was opted for Central Dearness Allowance at the time of retirement. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.124 of 2003 dated 13.04.2010 and the relevant portion of the order is extracted as hereunder:-
“This writ appeal has been filed against the order of dismissal dated 29.11.2002 passed in W.P.No.17378 of 2000 filed to quash the order dated 17.08.2000 passed by the third respondent and for a direction to the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner as applicable to a retired Central Government employee and grant retirement benefits.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is no more res integra in view of the judgment dated 10.02.2010 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.238 to 244 (Union of India and another Vs. P.N.Natarajan and others, etc.,) where under the appeals preferred by the Government of India were dismissed thereby directing the authorities to release the amount payable to the employees.
3. In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.”
4. According to the above judgment the authorities were directed to release the amount payable to the employees as applicable to the retired Central Government Employees and grant retirement benefits. The learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 counsel further submitted that the petitioner was receiving the pension under Central Dearness Allowance from the year 1992 to 1999 and suddenly without giving any notice the same was reduced by applying IDA (Industrial Dearness Allowance) without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Cont.P.No.1014 of 2010 dated 24.03.2011 and the relevant portion of the order is extracted as hereunder:-
“3. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the order passed by this Court has been complied with by the respondents in the month of October 2010 itself. In support of the same, he has produced the reply counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent herein, wherein at paragraph No.16, it has been stated as follows:-
“Therefore it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is sanctioned Central Dearness Relief on his basic pension from 01.08.1992 in compliance with the order of the Apex Court revision of pension and paid arrears accordingly. The calculation sheet showing the pension sanctioned on various dates and Central Dearness Relief paid to the petitioner is enclosed. Hence there is no deliberate disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble Court”.
4. In view of the compliance of the order of this Court dated 13.04.2010 made in W.A.No.124 of 2003, this contempt petition is closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it is for him to seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum. However, there shall be no order as to costs”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
5. The learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in W.A.No.1878 of 2008 dated 17.11.2008 in a similar case and the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“17. Even if the memorandum of settlement is held applicable to other employees of the Corporation, the same cannot adversely affect the option exercised by the private respondents in terms of Section 12A (4) (a) and (b) read with Section 12A (4C) of the Act. It has neither been suggested on behalf of the appellants nor it can be laid down as a proposition of law that the bipartite settlement arrived at between the Unions of the employees and the Management of the Corporation could take away the right acquired by the respondents as a sequel to exercise of option in terms of Section 12A(4) (b).
19. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Each of the private respondents shall get cost of Rs.10,000/- from the appellants”.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the letter dated 03.11.2010 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food & Public Distribution, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai addressed to the Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, New Delhi and the copy of the letter is extracted as below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
7. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the letter dated 09.11.2010 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution addressed to the Pay and Accounts Officer, Department of Food, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai it has been stated that the pension / Family Pension of the petitioner namely G.Renganathan who retired on 31.07.1992 has been revised and necessary revised calculation sheet and OSR of the above official are enclosed for further action and the copy of the letter is extracted as below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 01.10.2010 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai addressed to the Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, New Delhi in which it is stated that the original pension of Rs.2,365/- of G.Ranganathan the petitioner herein was calculated on 1992 IDA Pay scale. It is updated to Rs.6,224/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and further updated to Rs.14,067/- as per VI PCR and the said letter is extracted hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 13 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 14 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 15 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
9. In the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (Civil Appeal No(s).238-244 of 2004) dated 10.02.2010 it is stated as follows:-
“12. It is not in dispute that before directing revision of the pension etc., payable to the private respondents, the Central Government did not give them action oriented notice and opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. Therefore, it must be held that the direction given by the Central Government to revise the retiral benefits including the pension payable to the respondents was nullity.
14. We may advert to the bipartite settlement on which reliance has been placed by the appellants to justify the directive given by the Central Government for adverse revision of the retiral dues payable to the respondents. Para 7.1 of the memorandum of settlement, the extracts of which has been placed before this Court in the form of Annexure R-4 read as under:-
“Pension: In the case of Good Transferee employees who have opted Section 12-A of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 to be governed by the Pension Rules of the Central Government as amended from time to time, Pension shall be worked out as under:
(i) For those retiring during the period 1st August 1983 to 30th March 1985, employments for purposes of working out pension will be the pay in the revised scale.
In the case of persons retiring prior to 31st May, 1984 emoluments for the period prior to 1st August, 1983 shall be the emoluments which would have been taken into account for the purpose of pension as per the then existing orders.
(iii) For those retiring during the period 31st March, 1985 to 31st December, 1985 emoluments for purposes of pension will be pay in the revised scale and Industrial DA as admissible in FCI on 1 st November, 1984.
In the case of persons retiring prior to 31st December, 1985 emoluments for the period prior to 31st March, 1985 shall be the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 16 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 emoluments which would have been taken into account for the purpose of pension as at Senior (i) above.
(iii) For those retiring during the period 1st Jan., 1986 emoluments for the period prior to 1st January 1986 shall be the emoluments which would have been taken into account for the purpose of pension as at Senior No.(ii) above.” A perusal of what has been reproduced above makes it clear that the settlement was applicable to the employees retiring between 01.08.1983 and 31.07.1987.
10. The learned counsel further submitted that in the pension book it is clearly mentioned that the pension which was sanctioned was under the Central Civil Service Pension Rules and the date of commencement of the pension was 01.08.1992. Copy of the pass book is below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 17 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 18 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
11. It is pertinent to extract Section 12A (4) (a) and (b) of the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 and the same is extracted as below:-
12A. Special provisions for transfer of Government employees to the Corporation in certain cases – (1) where the Central Government has ceased or ceases to perform any functions which under Section 13 are functions of the Corporation, it shall be lawful for the Central Government to transfer by order and with effect from such date or dates (which may be either retrospective to any date not earlier than the 1 st January, 1965 or prospective) as may be specified in the order, to the corporation any of the officers or employees serving in the Department of the Central Government dealing with food or any of its subordinate or attached offices and engaged in the performance of those functions:
provided that no order under this sub-section shall be made in relation to any officer or employee in such Department or office who has in respect of the proposal of the Central Government to transfer such officer or employee to the Corporation, intimated within such time as may be specified in this behalf by that Government, his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation.
(2) In making an order under sub-section (1), the Central Government shall as far as may be take into consideration the functions which the Central Government has ceased or ceases to perform and the areas in which such functions have been or are performed.
(4) Every officer or other employee transferred by an order made under sub-section (1) shall within six months from the date of transfer, exercise his option in writing to be governed-
(a) by the scale of pay applicable to the post held by him under the Government immediately before the date of transfer or by the scale of pay applicable to the post under the Corporation to which he is transferred.
(b) by the leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to employees of the Central Government as amended from time to time or the leave, provident fund or other terminal benefits admissible https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 19 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 to the employees of the Corporation under the regulations made by the Corporation under this act, and such option once exercised shall be final:
12. The learned counsel also filed a memo dated 17.03.2023 on behalf of the petitioner in which it is stated that a sum of Rs.29,37,697/- was due to the petitioner under the Central Government Rules. W.A.No.124 of 2003 as stated supra has been filed by the petitioner and the same was allowed by this Court on 13.04.2010. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mr.P.Balasubramaniam Vs Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Food, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi and others (W.P.Nos.35827 to 35856 of 2015 batch of cases) wherein this Court, at paragraph No.7 followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v P.N. Natarajan & others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 405 and the relevant portion is extracted as below:-
“7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this regard made a submission that all the writ petitioners had exercised their option adopting the scale of pay as applicable to the employees of the Food Corporation of India for salary and in respect of the pension and terminal benefits of the petitioners before this Court, had opted for Central Government benefits as admissible to the Central Government employees. Thus, it is made clear that the writ petitioners before this Court had opted for the terminal and pensionary benefits as applicable to the Central Government employees. The two fold options were given considering the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 20 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 factual circumstances that the writ petitioners were initially appointed by the Government of India and subsequently, transferred to the Food Corporation of India. Since, the employees were initially appointed by the Government of India, they have given option to opt for the terminal benefits as applicable to the Central Government employees. Thus, a special condition was provided to these employees who were transferred from Government of India Department to the Food Corporation of India. It is an admitted fact that all these writ petitioners had exercised their option, opting for Central Government pensionary benefits under the law.”
13. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been superannuated on 31.07.1992 and at present he is 87 years old and after 1999 he was getting only a meagre amount of Rs.1,801/- as pension instead of Rs.5,493/- which he was drawing up to the February 1999.
14. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 in the year 2013. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was drawing FCI salary under IDA Scale and only IDA Pension and IDA Salary (Industrial Dearness Allowance) is applicable to the petitioner and CDA pension is not permissible to the petitioner.. He has referred to paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit and the relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:-
3. Henceforth, from 30.04.1965 on his absorption in FCI, the petitioner became an FCI employee with the designation of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 21 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 Godown Clerk and posted to Regional Office, FCI, Chennai. On his transfer to FCI, he was given option under Section 12 A of the FCI Act 1964 like any other Food Transferees to choose between the FCI scale of pay and Government scale of pay as per Sub-
Section 12 4(a) and to opt either the leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Corporation or that of the Central Government as per Section 12 4(a). The option should be exercised within six months of his transfer to FCI and the option becomes final as per the FCI Act 1964. A copy of the option exercised by the petitioner on 17.03.1977 is produced herewith and marked as R1(c). As per Exhibit R1(c), the petitioner has opted for the FCI pay scale as per Section 12 4(a) of the FCI Act and for the Central Government terminal benefits as per Section 12 4(b) of the FCI Act”.
15. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
16. The petitioner initially joined as Tally clerk in the office of the Assistant Director of Food Department, Government of India at Chennai and in the year 1965 he was deputed/transferred to serve in the Food Corporation of India in the capacity as a Central Government Employee. Initially he was designated as Assistant Grade III. By gradual promotion be became Assistant Grade I and in that capacity he retired from service on 31.07.1992. The pension was sanctioned to the petitioner as per the rules applicable to the Central Government employees and he was receiving the same till February https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 22 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 1992 until an audit objection was raised by letter dated 30.03.1999. The pension was revised based on the recommendation of the 5 th Pay Commission and the petitioner's pension was fixed at Rs.5,047 in December 1997. In the 1st week of April 1999 entry made as pension is only a sum of Rs.1,801/- instead of a sum of Rs.5,047/-. When the same was questioned by the petitioner it was informed to him that based on the Audit objection it has been reduced. In SLP (Civil Appeal No(s).238-244 of 2004) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed all the appeals on 10.02.2010 confirming the order of the High Court wherein High Court gave a finding that the employees are entitled to receive all the benefits of the Central Government Employees and also further declared that in view of the option exercised the persons like the petitioner are to be treated as Central Government Employees and based on which W.A.No.124 of 2003 filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.04.2010. The second respondent by proceedings dated 28.09.2010 has filed the calculation sheet as per the Central Civil Service Rules and the benefits accrued to the petitioner as on 28.02.2011 was a sum of Rs.22,33,637/- inclusive of Vth and VIth pay commission revision of pension.
17. The petitioner while joining the Food Corporation of India was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 23 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 opted for Central Rules as per Section 12A & 14B of Food Corporation of India Act and as per the option the pension to the petitioner has to be paid according to Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) and not in Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) as contended by the respondents. In W.A.No.124 of 2003 filed by the petitioner the authorities were directed to release the amount payable to the employees as applicable to the retired Central Government Employees and also to grant retirement benefits. Despite the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.124 of 2003 the respondent authorities have not granted the pension to the petitioner as per CDA rules. It is crystal clear and evident from the pension payment order of the petitioner wherein it is clearly stated that the rules under which the pension was sanctioned was according to the Central Civil Service Pension Rules and the commencement of the pension was mentioned as 01.08.1992. When the petitioner has opted for Central Civil Service Pension Rules then he is entitled for CDA pension and not IDA pension as contended by the respondents.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.124 of 2003 dated 13.04.2010 and the relevant portion of the order is extracted as hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 24 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 “This writ appeal has been filed against the order of dismissal dated 29.11.2002 passed in W.P.No.17378 of 2000 filed to quash the order dated 17.08.2000 passed by the third respondent and for a direction to the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner as applicable to a retired Central Government employee and grant retirement benefits.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is no more res integra in view of the judgment dated 10.02.2010 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.238 to 244 (Union of India and another Vs. P.N.Natarajan and others, etc.,) whereunder the appeals preferred by the Government of India were dismissed thereby directing the authorities to release the amount payable to the employees.
3. In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.”
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Cont.P.No.1014 of 2010 dated 24.03.2011 and the relevant portion of the order is extracted as hereunder:-
“3. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the order passed by this Court has been complied with by the respondents in the month of October 2010 itself. In support of the same, he has produced the reply counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent herein, wherein at paragraph No.16, it has been stated as follows:-
“Therefore it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is sanctioned Central Dearness Relief on his basic pension from 01.08.1992 in compliance with the order of the Apex Court revision of pension and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 25 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 paid arrears accordingly. The calculation sheet showing the pension sanctioned on various dates and Central Dearness Relief paid to the petitioner is enclosed. Hence there is no deliberate disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble Court”.
4. In view of the compliance of the order of this Court dated 13.04.2010 made in W.A.No.124 of 2003, this contempt petition is closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it is for him to seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum. However, there shall be no order as to costs”.
20. The learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in W.A.No.1878 of 2008 dated 17.11.2008 in a similar case and the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“17. Even if the memorandum of settlement is held applicable to other employees of the Corporation, the same cannot adversely affect the option exercised by the private respondents in terms of Section 12A (4) (a) and (b) read with Section 12A (4C) of the Act. It has neither been suggested on behalf of the appellants nor it can be laid down as a proposition of law that the bipartite settlement arrived at between the Unions of the employees and the Management of the Corporation could take away the right acquired by the respondents as a sequel to exercise of option in terms of Section 12A(4) (b).
19. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Each of the private respondents shall get cost of Rs.10,000/- from the appellants”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 26 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
21. In the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (Civil Appeal No(s).238-244 of 2004) dated 10.02.2010 it is stated as follows:-
“12. It is not in dispute that before directing revision of the pension etc., payable to the private respondents, the Central Government did not give them action oriented notice and opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. Therefore, it must be held that the direction given by the Central Government to revise the retiral benefits including the pension payable to the respondents was nullity.
14. We may advert to the bipartite settlement on which reliance has been placed by the appellants to justify the directive given by the Central Government for adverse revision of the retiral dues payable to the respondents. Para 7.1 of the memorandum of settlement, the extracts of which has been placed before this Court in the form of Annexure R-4 read as under:-
“Pension: In the case of Good Transferee employees who have opted Section 12-A of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 to be governed by the Pension Rules of the Central Government as amended from time to time, Pension shall be worked out as under:
(i) For those retiring during the period 1st August 1983 to 30th March 1985, employments for purposes of working out pension will be the pay in the revised scale.
In the case of persons retiring prior to 31st May, 1984 emoluments for the period prior to 1st August, 1983 shall be the emoluments which would have been taken into account for the purpose of pension as per the then existing orders.
(iii) For those retiring during the period 31st March, 1985 to 31st December, 1985 emoluments for purposes of pension will be pay in the revised scale and Industrial DA as admissible in FCI on 1 st November, 1984.
In the case of persons retiring prior to 31st December, 1985 emoluments for the period prior to 31st March, 1985 shall be the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 27 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 emoluments which would have been taken into account for the purpose of pension as at Senior (i) above.
(iii) For those retiring during the period 1st Jan., 1986 emoluments for the period prior to 1st January 1986 shall be the emoluments which would have been taken into account for the purpose of pension as at Senior No.(ii) above.” A perusal of what has been reproduced above makes it clear that the settlement was applicable to the employees retiring between 01.08.1983 and 31.07.1987.
22. It is pertinent to extract Section 12A (4) (a) and (b) of the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 and the same is extracted as below:-
12A. Special provisions for transfer of Government employees to the Corporation in certain cases – (1) where the Central Government has ceased or ceases to perform any functions which under Section 13 are functions of the Corporation, it shall be lawful for the Central Government to transfer by order and with effect from such date or dates (which may be either retrospective to any date not earlier than the 1 st January, 1965 or prospective) as may be specified in the order, to the corporation any of the officers or employees serving in the Department of the Central Government dealing with food or any of its subordinate or attached offices and engaged in the performance of those functions:
provided that no order under this sub-section shall be made in relation to any officer or employee in such Department or office who has in respect of the proposal of the Central Government to transfer such officer or employee to the Corporation, intimated within such time as may be specified in this behalf by that Government, his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation.
(2) In making an order under sub-section (1), the Central Government shall as far as may be take into consideration the functions which the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 28 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 Central Government has ceased or ceases to perform and the areas in which such functions have been or are performed.
(4) Every officer or other employee transferred by an order made under sub-section (1) shall within six months from the date of transfer, exercise his option in writing to be governed-
(a) by the scale of pay applicable to the post held by him under the Government immediately before the date of transfer or by the scale of pay applicable to the post under the Corporation to which he is transferred.
(b) by the leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to employees of the Central Government as amended from time to time or the leave, provident fund or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Corporation under the regulations made by the Corporation under this act, and such option once exercised shall be final:
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 01.10.2010 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai addressed to the Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, New Delhi in which it is stated that the original pension of Rs.2,365/- of G.Ranganathan the petitioner herein was calculated on 1992 IDA Pay scale. It is updated to Rs.6,224/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and further updated to Rs.14,067/- as per VI PCR and the said letter is extracted hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 29 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 30 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the letter dated 03.11.2010 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food & Public Distribution, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai addressed to the Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, New Delhi and the copy of the letter is extracted as below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 31 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 32 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the letter dated 09.11.2010 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution addressed to the Pay and Accounts Officer, Department of Food, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai it has been stated that the pension / Family Pension of the petitioner namely G.Renganathan who retired on 31.07.1992 has been revised and necessary revised calculation sheet and OSR of the above official are enclosed for further action and the copy of the letter is extracted as below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 33 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 34 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mr.P.Balasubramaniam Vs Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Food, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi and others (W.P.Nos.35827 to 35856 of 2015 batch of cases) wherein this Court, at paragraph No.7 followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v P.N. Natarajan & others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 405 and the relevant portion is extracted as below:-
“7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this regard made a submission that all the writ petitioners had exercised their option adopting the scale of pay as applicable to the employees of the Food Corporation of India for salary and in respect of the pension and terminal benefits of the petitioners before this Court, had opted for Central Government benefits as admissible to the Central Government employees. Thus, it is made clear that the writ petitioners before this Court had opted for the terminal and pensionary benefits as applicable to the Central Government employees. The two fold options were given considering the factual circumstances that the writ petitioners were initially appointed by the Government of India and subsequently, transferred to the Food Corporation of India. Since, the employees were initially appointed by the Government of India, they have given option to opt for the terminal benefits as applicable to the Central Government employees. Thus, a special condition was provided to these employees who were transferred from Government of India Department to the Food Corporation of India. It is an admitted fact that all these writ petitioners had exercised their option, opting for Central Government pensionary benefits under the law.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 35 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012
27. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.N.Natarajan, supra, the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed an order in W.P.No.35827 to 35856 dated 01.10.2018 holding that since the petitioners have exercised their option for Central Government Pensionary benefits under the law, they are entitled to the same.
28. In spite of the undertaking given by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.N. Natarajan, supra, and before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.124 of 2003, it is not fair and proper on the part of the respondents to deny pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled only to CDA pension and not IDA pension, as contended by the respondents.
29. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 27.10.2010 is hereby quashed.
30. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to enhance the pension of the petitioner as per the V & VI pay commission report with effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 36 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 terms of Section 12A(4)(b) r/w 12A(4)(c) of the F.C.I. Act with all consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
01.06.2023 Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order dpq https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 37 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 To
1. The Pay and Accounts Officer Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi 110 066
2. The Regional Director(Food), Southern Region, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006
3. Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Food, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006
4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, “Vivekananda House”, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 38 of 39 W.P.No.8071 of 2012 J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
dpq W.P.No.8071 of 2012 01.06.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 39 of 39