Supreme Court - Daily Orders
D. Gurusamy vs The Govt. Of Tamil Nadu . on 16 September, 2014
Bench: Dipak Misra, N.V. Ramana
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8989 OF 2014
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4143/2013)
D. GURUSAMY .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant was appointed as a Works Manager in Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation ('TANSI' for short) on 20.10.1982 and thereafter he was transferred to Tamil nadu Leather Development Corporation ('TALCO' for short) on 14.04.1986 wherein he was promoted to the post of General Manager. On 22.02.1993, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a G.O.Ms. No. 675. As per the said notification, there could be absorption of an employee in a public sector undertaking in a statutory Board.
It is not in dispute that TALCO was a public sector Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Naveen Kumar Date: 2014.09.18 undertaking and the appellant, pursuant to the said 16:55:09 IST Reason: notification, was absorbed in Khadi Board – a statutory one. While he was serving in TALCO, he had contributed 2 to the contributory provident fund benefit. The stipulation in the notification which is relevant for the present purpose is as follows:
“(iii) A State Public Sector Undertaking employee getting absorbed in a Statutory Board where a pension scheme is in existence.
An employee of a State Public Sector Undertaking on permanent absorption under a Statutory Board may either opt to receive contributory provident fund benefits which have accrued to him from the State Public Sector Undertaking and start his service afresh in the Statutory Board or choose to count the service rendered in the State Public Sector Undertaking as qualifying service for pension in the Statutory Board by foregoing the employer's share of contributory provident fund contributions, with interest thereon, which may be paid by the State Public Sector Undertaking to the concerned Statutory Board which absorbs the concerned individual. The option may be exercised within one year from the date of absorption. If no option is exercised within a stipulated period, the employee shall be deemed to have opted to receive contributory provident fund benefits.” It is submitted by Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had exercised his option within a period of one year and had not withdrawn any amount from the contributory provident fund and, therefore, he is entitled to pension, regard being had to 27 years of unblemished service he has rendered in the State Government.
On a query being made, Mr. Dushyant Parashar, 3 learned counsel for the Board, after obtaining instructions, submitted that the contributory provident fund is still lying with the State Government and has not been transferred to the Board. As far as the exercise of option within one year is concerned, there is no cavil about the same. On a perusal of the orders passed by the High Court, we find that these aspects have not been appositely dealt with. Once the option is exercised within the stipulated time and the appellant had not withdrawn any amount from the contributory provident fund it was obligatory on the part of the State Government to transfer the amount to the Board. It cannot be permitted to take a stance to deny the pension payable to the appellant on that score. Had the funds been transferred, the Khadi Board would have allowed him the benefit of pension. For no fault of his, he should suffer. It is the fault of the Government that it had not transferred the fund lying in deposit and, therefore, we direct that the said amount be transferred with accrued interest in favour of the Board within four weeks and the Board is directed to release the pensionary benefit to the appellant, along with arrears, within eight weeks from today. Needless to emphasise, after expiry of eight weeks, the Board shall regularly pay the pension, as payable to the 4 appellant.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the High Court are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
…......................J. (DIPAK MISRA) …......................J. (N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 5 ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.8 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4143/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/11/2012 in WA No. 1225/2011 passed by the High Court Of Madras) D. GURUSAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 16/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. K. Mani, Adv.
Mrs. T. Archana, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG Mr. B. Balaji, Adv.
Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. S. Anand, Adv.
Ms. R. Shahji, Adv.
Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai,Adv.
R.3 Mr. Dshyant Parashar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NAVEEN KUMAR) (RENUKA SADANA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)