Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Arif Hussain vs Water Resources on 24 July, 2024
1 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00050 of 2021
with OA Nos. 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613 of 2022,
O.A. Nos. 213 and 215 of 2023,
O.A. Nos. 25, 194 and 413 of 2024
Reserved on 15.07.2024 Pronounced on 24.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
OA 50/2021
1. Shri Ashok Kumar Mohanty, aged about 61 years, son of Late
Dandapani Mohanty, permanent resident of Plot No.785/3535,
At/P.O.Budheswari, Old Post Office Lane, Bhubaneswar-751006.
2. Shri Gopal Krushna Behera, aged about 61 years, son of late
Gopinath Behera, permanent resident of EA-86, Badagada Brit
Colony, Badagada, Bhubaneswar-751018.
3. Shri Bijay Chandra Patra, aged about 62 years, son of late
Krushna Chandra Gochhayat, permanent resident of Plot
No.258/3498, Near KID Jee School, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar-
751002.
4. Smt. Bhajayanti Mala Naik, aged about 63 years, Daughter of late
Bandia Naik, permanent of EB- 726, Badagada Brit Colony,
Badagada, Bhubaneswar-751018.
5. Shri Prafulla Kumar Samal, aged about 60 years, son of late
Kumar Samal, permanent of Podapada, P.O.Siaro, Via. Bamanal,
P.S. Gop, Dist. Puri- 752121.
......Applicants
VERSUS
1. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Government of India, Department of Water Resources,
2 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti
Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110 001.
2. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Government of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti
Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Government of India, Department of Water
Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20,
Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017.
4. Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. J.K.Nayak, Counsel
OA 608/2022
Shri Jugal Kishore Muduli, aged about 61 years, son of
Late Khetrabasi Muduli, permanent resident Vill/PO Kokalaba, PS-
Narsinghpur, Dist-Cuttack and retired on superannuation of age as
Driver.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
2. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
3 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakri Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN-110 017.
4. The Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
6. The Chief Engineer (North), National Water Development Agency,
4/193-F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN-226010.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National
Water Development Agency, F-24. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, PIN-
751014
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. D.K.Sahoo, Counsel
OA 609/2022
Shri Sarata Kumar Dash, aged about 62 years, son of
Late Narasingha Dash, permanent resident Vill/PO Haripur, PS-
Balanga, Puri and retired on superannuation of age as MTS.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
2. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
4 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakri Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN-110 017.
4. The Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
6. The Chief Engineer (North), National Water Development Agency,
4/193-F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN-226010.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National
Water Development Agency, F-24. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, PIN-
751014
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Ms. U.R.Padhi, Counsel
OA 610/2022
Shri Kailash Chandra Samal, aged about 61 years, son of
Late Kunja Samal, permanent resident at- Nakadiha, PO- Alipingala,
PS- Nimapada, Dist- Puri, and retired on superannuation of age as
MTS.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
2. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakri Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN-110 017.
4. The Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
6. The Chief Engineer (North), National Water Development Agency,
4/193-F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN-226010.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National
Water Development Agency, F-24. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, PIN-
751014
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. G.N.Sethi, Counsel
OA 611/2022
Shri Dhaneswar Mallick, aged about 61 years, son of
Late Kumar Bara Mallick, permanent resident at- Rahamba, PO-
Postal, Via- B.Sailo, PS- Govindpur, Dist-Cutttack and retired on
superannuation of age as Head Clerk.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
6 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
2. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakri Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN-110 017.
4. The Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
6. The Chief Engineer (North), National Water Development Agency,
4/193-F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN-226010.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National
Water Development Agency, F-24. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, PIN-
751014.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Mohapatra, Counsel
OA 612/2022
Shri Ananta Prasad Patra, aged about 60 years, son of
Late Gobinda Patra, permanent resident of ward no. 10, Amunia
Street, PO/PS Purushottampur, Dist-Ganjam, and retired on
superannuation of age as Head Clerk.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
7 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
2. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakri Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN-110 017.
4. The Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
6. The Chief Engineer (North), National Water Development Agency,
4/193-F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN-226010.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National
Water Development Agency, F-24. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, PIN-
751014.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. A.Mishra, Counsel
OA 613/2022
Sk. Arif Hussain aged about 62 years, son of
Late Shaikh Sanavllah, permanent resident of Vill. Majhikhanda, PO-
Niali, PS- Govindapur, Dist. Cuttack and retired on superannuation
of age as MTS.
......Applicant
VERSUS
8 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
1. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
2. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakri Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN-110 017.
4. The Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
6. The Chief Engineer (North), National Water Development Agency,
4/193-F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN-226010.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National
Water Development Agency, F-24. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, PIN-
751014.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. A.K.Sahu, Counsel
OA 213/2023
Ramanath Panda, aged about 60 years, son of late Prahallad Panda,
At-Prachi Vihar, PO/PS- Kakatpur, Dist- Puri 752180, Retired Head
Clerk Office of the Investigation Division, NWDA, Bhubaneswar,
National Water Development Agency, F/24, BJB Nagar,
Bhubaneswar-754014, Dist- Khurda.
......Applicant
9 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary, Ministry of Jal
Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development and
Ganga Rejuvenation, Shrama Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Director General, National Water Development Agency, 18-20
Community Center, SAKET, New Delhi-110017.
3. Chief Engineer(North), National Water Development Agency, Plot
No.4/193F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010.
4. Superintending Engineer Investigation Circle, National Water
Development Agency, Plot No. F/24, B.J.B. Nagar, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda-751014.
5. Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National Water
Development Agency, WALMI Complex, Main Institute Building(3rd
floor) Phulwari Sharit, Patna-801505.
6. Executive Engineer, Investigation Division, National Water
Development Agency, WALMI Complex, Main Institute Building (3rd
floor) Phulwari Sharit, Patna-801505
7. Assistant Engineer, Investigation Sub-Division, National Water
Development Agency, Dhumsa Toli, Pragati Path, Chutia, Ranchi-
834001.
8. Executive Engineer, Investigation Division, NWDA Bhawan,
Administrative Building, 2nd floor, Seeta-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata-
700091.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.B.Jena, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Sahoo, Counsel
OA 215/2023
Radhu Charan Behura, aged about 60 years, son of late Mayadhar
Behura, At-Jharapada, PO-Bhitaragarh, PS- Rajnagar, Dist-
10 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
Kendrapara- 754225, Retired Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), Office of
the Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National Water
Development Agency, F/24, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar-754014, Dist-
Khurda.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary, Ministry of Jal
Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development and
Ganga Rejuvenation, Shrama Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Director General, National Water Development Agency, 18-20
Community Center, SAKET, New Delhi-110017.
3. Chief Engineer(North), National Water Development Agency, Plot
No.4/193F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010.
4. Superintending Engineer Investigation Circle, National Water
Development Agency, Plot No. F/24, B.J.B. Nagar, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda-751014.
5. Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National Water
Development Agency, WALMI Complex, Main Institute Building(3rd
floor) Phulwari Sharit, Patna-801505.
6. Executive Engineer, Investigation Division, National Water
Development Agency, WALMI Complex, Main Institute Building (3rd
floor) Phulwari Sharit, Patna-801505
7. Assistant Engineer, Investigation Sub-Division, National Water
Development Agency, Dhumsa Toli, Pragati Path, Chutia, Ranchi-
834001.
8. Executive Engineer, Investigation Division, NWDA Bhawan,
Administrative Building, 2nd floor, Seeta-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata-
700091.
9. Executive Engineer, Investigation Division, NWDA, F-24, B.J.B.
Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751014.
......Respondents
11 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
For the applicant : Mr. S.B.Jena, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. D.P.Mohapatra, Counsel
OA 25/2024
Shri Udaya Kumar Rath, aged about 60 years, son of late Dibakar
Rath, present permanent address Flat No.D-304, Sairose Apartment,
Phase-II, Raghunathpurjali, P.O./P.S-Patia, Bhubaneswar, Khurda
and retired on superannuation of age as Head Clerk.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
2. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakri Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN-110 017.
4. The Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
6. The Chief Engineer (North), National Water Development Agency,
4/193-F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN-226010.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National
Water Development Agency, F-24. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, PIN-
751014.
12 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Ms. K.Pattnaik, Counsel
OA 194/2024
Shri Surendra Nath Gouda, aged about 60 years, son of
Shri Kirtan Gouda, present permanent address At/PO- Bandhaguda,
Via- Seragada, Dist- Ganjam, PIN 751014 and retired on
superannuation of age as M.T.S.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
2. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakri Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN-110 017.
4. The Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
6. The Chief Engineer (North), National Water Development Agency,
4/193-F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN-226010.
13 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
7. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National
Water Development Agency, F-24. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, PIN-
751014.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. P.K.Ray, Counsel
OA 413/2024
Shri Madan Mohan Dhal, aged about 60 years, son of late Golekh
Chandra Dhal, permanent resident of Vill. Bhanra, PO- Pubasahi,Via-
Dasarathpur, Dist. Jajpur, Odisha at present residing at Plot No.-
6111/3498, AT/PO- Hatasahi, Old Town, Bhubaneswar, Dist.
Khorda, Odisha, PIN- 751002 and retired on superannuation of age
as Stenographer Grade-I.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA represented through its Secretary, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
2. PRESIDENT, National Water Development Agency, Ministry of
Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakri Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Govt. of India, Department of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, 18-20, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi, PIN-110 017.
4. The Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001.
14 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
6. The Chief Engineer (North), National Water Development Agency,
4/193-F, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN-226010.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, National
Water Development Agency, F-24. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, PIN-
751014.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. S.K.Pradhan, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The facts of these cases are briefly stated that applicants, in all the OAs, are the retired employees of National Water Development Agency (NWDA), which was established as a Society in July 1982 and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and functioning under the administrative control of Ministry of Water Resources to carry out detailed studies, surveys and investigations in respect of Peninsular Component of National Perspective for Water Resources Development. For proper discharge of its day-to-day functions/smooth running, NWDA framed rules and regulations known as Bye-laws of the National Water Development Agency.
2. In all these cases, the basic grievances of the applicants are that Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, 15 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors Dept. of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi issued Office Memorandum No. 4/1/87 PIC-I dated 01.05.1987 (A/1) for "change over of the Central Government employees from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) to Pension Scheme-Implementation of the recommendations of the fourth Central Pay Commission". In the said OM, it was specifically stated that if no option is received by the date so fixed, specifically requesting to continuing under the CPF Scheme, the employees concerned will be deemed to have come over to Pension Scheme. All the applicants were the beneficiaries of CPF. The OMs/Circulars/Orders issued by the Govt. of India from time to time are mutatis mutandis applicable to the employees of the NWDA. Therefore, the applicants ought to have been treated to have switched over to the Pension Scheme and, upon their retirement, they should have been paid pension and pensionary benefits instead of the benefits flowing from CPF. Hence, they have prayed for direction to the respondents to treat them as employees under Pension Rules, 1972 in terms of the OM dated 01.05.1987 and grant them pension and pensionary benefits with arrears and interest thereon. 16 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
3. Respondents, in all the cases, filed their counter contesting the cases of the applicants by stating inter alia that the NWDA is a society established in the year 1982 and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The NWDA has its own rules and regulations for meeting the functioning and state of affairs. Bye-Law 26(a) of NWDA stipulates that emoluments structure of the employees of NWDA will be adopted with the approval of the Govt. of India in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Expenditure). Bye-Law 28 states that till such time as the Agency frames its own working rules and regulations governing service conditions of the employees of the Agency, the rules and orders applicable to the Central Govt. employees shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Agency subject to such modifications as may be made by the Governing Body from time to time. As per Rule 27(a), the governing body of the NWDA society shall exercise all executive and financial powers of the Society including those vested/conferred/or to be conferred on it by or under any Statute subject, nevertheless in respect of expenditure, to such limitations as the Govt. of India may impose from time to time. 17 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors 3.1 According to the respondents, some of the employees of NWDA filed OA No. 2037/2008 before CAT, PB New Delhi inter alia praying for extend the pension and pensionary benefits to them w.e.f. 01.01.1986, which was disposed of on 08.02.2010 with direction to treat the applicants as covered under Pension Scheme in terms of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with all benefits as applicable to other central Govt. employees. The said order was challenged by the Department in W.P.No. 3197/2010 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 06.01.2011 set aside the order dated 08.02.2010 and directed the Union of India & Ors. to take appropriate decision in consultation with the Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare after examining the concerns raised by the Department of Expenditure. The NWDA after consultation with all the Nodal Authorities issued OM No. 8/82/2010-Admn/6977-82 dated 24.05.2011 stating that it is not possible to agree to extend the benefits of pension to the employees of NWDA on Govt. of India pattern. 3.2 Thereafter, some of the employees of NWDA filed SLP (C) No. 3106-3107 of 2012 and SLP(C) No. 20425-20426 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which were dismissed vide common judgment 18 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors dated 20.01.2015 holding that NWDA cannot be treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution merely on the basis that its funds are granted by the Central Govt. and, that, the applicants have failed to prove that they are at par with their counterparts with whom they claim parity. Thus, the employees of the NWDA cannot be said to be 'Central Govt. Employees" as stated in OM dated 01.05.1987 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Dept. of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare. 3.3 Further, it is stated that one retired employee of NWDA (Sri Rohit Kumar Sethi) filed OA No. 4242/2018 before CAT, PB, New Delhi praying for grant of pensionary benefits as applicable to the employees of the Central Govt. and the Tribunal vide order dated 11.09.2019 dismissed the said OA. Accordingly, respondents have submitted that since the issues arising out of these OAs have already been set at rest by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as CAT, PB, New Delhi, these OAs being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed. These OAs are hit by the provision of res judicata has also been taken as one of the grounds by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. 19 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
4. Rejoinder as well as reply to rejoinder were filed in some of the cases.
5. After completion of pleadings, these matters were listed for hearing. Since, issues involved in all the cases are same and similar, though, we heard the matter one after the other, for the sake of convenience, this common order is passed which would govern all these cases.
6. The main thrust of the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the applicants is that Bye- laws make it clear that the rules and orders applicable to the Central Govt. employees are mutatis mutandis applicable to the employees of the NWDA subject to any modification or change of the Governing Body. In other words, unless and Govt. order or decision is not modified or changed and denied its applicability specifically, in such situation the orders of the Govt. of India will applicable automatically as per the conditions of the Bye-law. In the case of Union of India Vrs. Alok Kumar, (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 22, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the exclusion must be provided in the statute in clear terms. The words of the rules, therefore, should be explicit or the intent should be irresistibly expressed for exclusion. So 20 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors far as present case is concerned, nowhere any such exclusion is available, which is prohibiting applicability of Govt. orders or decisions. Since, the provisions included in the Bye-law was on existence by the time Memorandum No. 4/1/87.PIC-1 dated 1st May, 1987 came into effect, the NWDA cannot deny applicability as no further rules/ amendments/modifications have been made. It is contended that there is no dispute with regard to Rule-26(a) of the Bye-law. The provision only indicates how the pay and allowances of the employees will be revised. No whisper is available in the provision relating to payment of pension. The Bye-law makes it clear that the rules and orders applicable to the Central Government employees also applicable mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Agency where no working rule is framed. There is no working rule or circular or independent decision available so far as NWDA is concerned, hence, the decision of Central Government will be applicable and binding. The NWDA has specifically intimated in letter dated 16.05.2019 that the issue regarding framing of own CPF Rules has not yet been finalized and, hence, the NWDA is still moving with the CPF Rules, 1962 framed by the Govt. of India. The stand of the applicants is that even if no such 21 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors independent decision has been taken by the NWDA, still they have automatically followed and adopted the NPS floated by the Govt. of India and the employees appointed after 01.01.2004 are/were placed under the Scheme. If at all, the Government of India decision is not applicable automatically to the NWDA, then no reason is available as to how the NPS became applicable to NWDA particularly when no such decision has been taken as yet.
6.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the stand of the Respondents that the NWDA has framed its own CPF Rules since 1982. Had the aforesaid facts been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court could not have dismissed the SLPs and, therefore, according to the applicants dismissal of the SLP would not stand on their way for getting the relief claimed in these OAs. It is contended that NWDA undoubtedly is a State under Art 12 of the Constitution as it satisfies all the criterions enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vrs. CSIR (Civil Appeal No.992 of 2002, disposed of on 16.04.2002). It is the case of the applicants that the employer is under obligation to grant the benefits in terms of the Rules and/or instructions issued by the Govt. from time to 22 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors time. Para-28 of the Bye-Law being clear and unambiguous, the respondents cannot take the stand and cannot go back by saying that a particular decision of the Central Government would not be applicable. No doubt that NWDA has the prerogative to modify or alter or change any decision of the Government of India before implementing the same, but in absence of any such modification or change, certainly the provisions would be applicable as per declaration made in Para-28 of the Bye-Law. It is submitted that Bye-law is subordinate legislation and once it is accepted the same should be given effect with all its rigors and flexibility. Therefore, applying flexibility of the Bye-law, the NWDA also implemented the NPS without any further decision of NWDA. 6.2 It is further submitted that the decision in the case of Rohit Kumar Sethi cannot be operated as res-judicata so far as claims of the present applicants are concerned because the points raised by the applicants in these OAs were not the points dealt in the said order by the CAT, PB, New Delhi. The Bye-Law is clear and unambiguous. So far as view of the Department of Pensioner & Pensioner's Welfare is concerned, it is altogether in respect of another issue relating to extension of another chance to the CPF beneficiaries for exercising 23 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors option to switch over to Pension Scheme. However, such letter does not indicate how the NPS has been implemented by the NWDA particularly when it is not a state and no such declaration or resolution has been made to the effect for implementation of that scheme. When Bye-Law has not been amended and provisions extending benefit to the employees is existing from its inception, Department of Pensioner & Pensioner's Welfare cannot take any different decision going beyond such provisions. It is further stated that the Government of India has allowed the employees to be covered under the old Pension Scheme so far as 20 autonomous institutions are concerned even though they have adopted their own CPF Rules and out of which most of the Institutions are also registered under the Societies Act whereas the employees of the NWDA have been discriminated. Last but not the least, it is submitted that since the aforesaid facts were never considered in the earlier decision, the said decisions are not applicable in the instant case. To buttress his claim, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Financial Corporation and another Vs. M/s Jagdamba Oil Mills and another, AIR 2002 SC 834, and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of 24 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors Orissa dated 14.07.2015 in W.P(C) No. 9279/2015 (Premalata Panda Vs. State of Odishal & Anr.). Accordingly, applicants have prayed for the relief claimed in the OAs.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents led emphasis on the points raised in the counter noted above and submitted that since on the particular issue a decision has already been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court and based on such decision, the CAT, PB, New Delhi has already dismissed another OA filed by one of the aggrieved employee of the NWDA, namely Sri Rohit Kumar Sethi, the arguments advanced by the applicants herein are of no help to them. Further, it is contended that the decisions relied on by the applicants are not of the case of NWDA and, therefore, the same have no applicability in the present case. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of these OAs.
8. Undisputedly, similarly placed employees of the NWDA approached the CAT, PB New Delhi in OA No. 2037/2008, which was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2010. The respondents department challenged the said order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble Delhi High 25 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors Court in W.P(C) No. 3197/2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2011, an excerpt from it reads as under:
"12. From the afore-noted conspectus of facts, it is clear that three questions arise for consideration in the present case; namely: (i) whether the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 issued by the Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare applies to the employees of NWDA; and (ii) whether the reliance placed by the Tribunal upon the decision of Supreme Court in S.L. Verma's case (supra) is correct.
In re: Question (i)
13. As already noted herein above, two principal reasons which have weighed with the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 applies to the employees of NWDA are that there is nothing in the language of clause 6.1 of the said memorandum to suggest that the same does not apply to the autonomous bodies working under the control of the Central Government particularly when the said clause is read in conjunction with clause 7.2 of the memorandum and that in view of bye-law 28 of the bye-laws of NWDA the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 which applies to the Central Government employees mutatis mutandis applies to the employees of NWDA.
14. The first reason given by the Tribunal to hold that the said memorandum applies to the employees of NWDA is wholly erroneous. Why do we hold so?
15. A careful reading of the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987, particularly of clauses 6.1 and 7.2 thereof, brings out that three distinct situations are envisaged therein regarding the application of the said memorandum. The first part of clause 6.1 envisages the first situation that the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 shall apply to the Civilian Central Government employees who are subscribing to the Contributory Provident Fund Rules India (1962). The second part of clause 6.2 envisages the second situation that the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 shall not ipso facto apply to the Civilian Central 26 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors Government employees who are subscribing to any of the Contributory Provident Fund Rules other than Contributory Provident Fund Rules India (1962) and that the respective administrative authorities shall issue necessary orders in said regards. Clause 7.2 envisages the third situation that the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 shall not ipso facto apply to the autonomous bodies and public sector undertakings etc. working under the administrative control of the various ministries of the Central Government and subscribing to any of the Contributory Provident Fund Rules other than Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India) 1962 and that the respective administrative ministries are advised to issue similar orders as Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 in respect of CPF beneficiaries covered under said rules after consultation with Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare.
16. In the instant case, the employees of NWDA are not "Civilian Central Government employees" as NWDA is not an organization of the Central Government but an autonomous body working under the administrative control of the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. Also it is worth noticing that the employees of NWDA who are subscribing to CPF Scheme are governed by National Water Development Agency Contributory Provident Fund Rules 1982 and not Contributory Provident Fund (India) Rules 1962. In that view of the matter, the employees of NWDA are covered under the third situation envisaged under clause 7.2 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 and not under the two situations envisaged under clause 6.1 of the memorandum and thus in view of the advise contained in clause 7.2 of the memorandum the Ministry of Water Resources ideally should have consulted the Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare for issuance of similar order as Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 for the employees of NWDA. However, the Ministry of Water Resources consulted the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance in respect of the said matter instead of consulting the Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare. To that extent, the petitioners have erred in not consulting the matter of issuance of order similar to the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 to the employees of NWDA with the Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare.27 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
17. As regards the reason given by the Tribunal predicated upon bye-law 28 of bye-laws of NWDA is concerned, suffice would it be to state that a bare reading of bye-law 28 makes it explicitly clear that the rules and orders applicable to the Central Government employees shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of NWDA only in cases where NWDA has not framed its own rules and regulations. In the instant case, as already noted in foregoing paras, NWDA has framed its own Contributory Provident Fund Rules in the year 1982. In such circumstances, bye-law 28 has no role to play in the instant case and the same could not have been resorted to by the Tribunal to apply the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 to the employees of NWDA.
In Re: Question No. (ii)
18. In S.L.Verma's case (supra), the facts were that the respondents Nos.1 to 13 were employed by Bureau of Indian Standards which is an authority created under Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and working under the administrative control of Ministry of Consumer Affairs. The respondents Nos.1 to 13 were the members of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Pursuant to and in furtherance of Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 Bureau of Indian Standards asked its employees to give their option whether to continue under the Provident Fund Scheme or not. Furthermore, Bureau of Indian Standards framed Regulations known as "Bureau of Indian Standards (Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulation 1988. Regulations 16 thereof provides that 'the employees shall be governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) rules, 1972; provided that the employees who had specifically elected to be governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India), 1962 immediately before the date of commencement of these regulations shall continue to be governed under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.' The respondents Nos.1 to 13 did not opt to continue under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme but were being treated as if they were continuing under CPF Scheme. Aggrieved by the said fact, the respondents Nos.1 to 13 the respondents Nos.1 to 13 filed a writ petition before Single Judge of the High Court. The stand taken by the Central Government was that in order to be governed under Pension Scheme it was obligatory on the part of 28 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors the respondents Nos.1 to 13 to give a positive option for the said purpose. The aforesaid stand of the government was repelled by Supreme Court in the following terms:-
"....The said Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987 assumes importance in view of the language used therein to which we intend to immediately advert to. The Office Memorandum is prefaced with calling for repeated options in the past asking the employees to switch over to the pension scheme. It was mentioned that such option has been asked for on 6.6.1985. The Central Government notices that despite the same, some of the employees still continued in the CPF Scheme. It further notices that the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission to the effect that CPF beneficiaries in service on 1.1.1986 would be deemed to have switched over to the pension scheme on that date unless they specifically opt out to continue under the CPF Scheme. It is not in dispute that the said recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission has been accepted by the Central Government and the same is applicable to the employees of the respondent No.14-Bureau of Indian Standards.....
7. The Central Government, in our opinion, proceeded on a basic misconception. By reason of the said Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987 a legal fiction was created. Only when an employee consciously opted for to continue with the CPF Scheme, he would not become a member of the Pension Scheme. It is not disputed that the said respondents did not give their options by 30.9.1987. In that view of the matter respondents Nos.1 to 13 in view of the legal fiction created, became members of the Pension Scheme. Once they became the member of the Pension Scheme, Regulation 16 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Terms and Condition of Service of Employees Regulation, 1988) had become ipso-facto applicable in their case also. It may be that they had made an option to continue with the CPF Scheme at a later stage but if by reason of the legal fiction created, they became members of the Pension Scheme, the question of their reverting to CPF would not arise. The respondent No.14 has correctly arrived at a conclusion that an anomaly would be created and in fact the said purported option on the respondent No.1 to 13 was illegal when a request was made by respondent No.14 to the Union of India for grant of approval so that all those 29 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors employees shall come within the purview of the Pension Scheme. In our opinion, the Ministry of Finance proceeded on a wrong premise that the Pension Scheme was not in existence and was a new one. Two legal fictions, as noticed hereinbefore, were created, one by reason of the memorandum, and another by reason of the acceptance of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1986. In terms of such legal fictions, it will bear repetition to state, the respondents nos.1 to 13 would be deemed to have switched over to the pension scheme, which a fortiori would mean that they no longer remained in the CPF scheme.
......." (Emphasis Supplied)
19. A careful comparison of the facts of S.L. Verma's case (supra) with the facts of the present case shows that there are two material facts which entirely distinguish S.L. Verma's case (supra) from the present case. The first fact is that in S.L. Verma's case Supreme Court proceeded on the premise that Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 was fully applicable to the employees of Bureau of Indian Standards. In fact, there are traces in the said decision that the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 was adopted by Bureau of Indian Standards, such as that pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1985 Bureau of Indian Standards sought option from its employees regarding the continuation in the CPF Scheme and framed Regulation 16, which regulation is in consonance with Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987. While on the other hand, in the instant case, the specific case set up by the petitioners was that the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 does not apply to the employees of NWDA. The second fact is that in S.L. Verma's case Supreme Court proceeded on the premise that the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission pertaining to switching over of the Central Government employees from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme were accepted by Bureau of Indian Standards whereas in the instant case it was specifically pleaded by the petitioners that the said recommendations of Fourth Central Pay Commission were not accepted by the Governing Body of NWDA. That being the position, the Tribunal completely erred in blindly applying the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in S.L. Verma's case in the present case.30 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors
Conclusion
20. The gist of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2010 passed by the Tribunal is faulty and deserves to be set aside and we do so by formally directing that the impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2010 allowing the Original Application filed by the respondents is set aside. However, in view of the discussion contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 above, we direct the Ministry of Water Resources to consult the matter of the issuance of an order similar to the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 for the employees of NWDA with the Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare and thereafter take an appropriate decision in said regard within four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Needless to state, while taking necessary decision, the Ministry of Water Resources and Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare shall examine the concerns raised by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance in the letter dated 16.03.2000.
21. The instant petition is allowed in the above terms."
9. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents department considered the issued relating to grant of pension and pensionary benefit but the same was rejected vide OM dated 24.05.2013. The aggrieved employees of NWDA filed SLP(C) Nos. 3106- 3107 of 2012 and SLP(C) 20425/20426 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which were dismissed, relevant portion of which is quoted herein below:
"14. In light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, it can be concluded that NWDA had framed its regulation the CPF Rules, 31 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors 1982 and they were duly approved by the Governing Body of NWDA. As NWDA is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Water Resources, it has framed it own bye-laws governing the employees. It has been time and again reiterated that the Court must adopt an attitude of total non-interference or minimal interference in the matter of interpretation of Rules framed by autonomous institutions. In Chairman & MD, Kerala SRTC vs. K.O. Varghese and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 231, this Court held:
"KSRTC is an autonomous corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It can regulate the service of its employees by making appropriate regulations it that behalf. The High Court is not correct in thinking that there is any compulsion on KSRTC on the mere adoption of Part III of KSR to automatically give all enhancements in pension and other benefits given by the State Government to its employees."
Thus, as the appellants are governed by the CPF Rules1982, the O.M. applicable to Central Government employees is not applicable to them.
On the issue of parity between the employees of NWDA and Central Government employees, even if it is assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist or were not applicable on the date of the O.M. i.e. 01.05.1987, the relevant date of parity, the principle of parity cannot be applicable to the employees of NWDA. NWDA cannot be treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution merely on the basis that its funds are granted by the Central Government. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 649, it was held by this Court that the autonomous bodies having some nexus with the Government by itself would not bring them within the sweep of the expression 'State' and each case must be determined on its own merits. Thus, the plea of the employees of NWDA to be treated at par with their counterparts in Central Government under sub rule (6)(iv) of Rule 2009 of General Financial Rules, merely on the basis of funding is not applicable. Even if it is presumed that NWDA is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, the appellants have failed to prove that they are at par with their counterparts, with whom they claim parity. As held by this Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Krishan 32 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors Bhandari, (1996) 11 SCC 348, the claim to equality can be claimed when there is discrimination by the State between two persons who are similarly situated. The said discrimination cannot be invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two different authorities functioning as State under Article 12. Thus, the employees of NWDA cannot be said to be 'Central Government Employees' as stated in the O.M. for its applicability.
Thus, by reason that the employees are governed by NWDA CPF Rules, 1982, the O.M. dated 01.05.1987 is not applicable to the appellant-employees. Further, as they have not established that they are Central Government employees, at par with their counterparts, their claim of parity with Central Government Employees is also defeated.
In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
10. Thereafter, one of the employee of the NWDA, namely Sri Rohit Kumar Sethi, filed OA No. 4242/2018 before CAT, PB, New Delhi praying for grant of pension and pensionary benefits. The Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the said prayer vide order dated 11.09.2019. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:
"7. During the course of hearing, leaned counsel for the applicant made his submissions in furtherance of the Grounds (5.1 to 5.10) as taken in the OA. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents by referring to the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in T.M. Sampath (supra) submitted that OM dated 1.5.1987 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioner‟s Welfare for change over of employees from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme w.e.f. 1.1.1986 is applicable only to Civilian Central Government employees and the employees of Autonomous 33 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors Bodies are not automatically covered by that OM and the NWDA issued OM dated 24.5.2011 in compliance of the directions of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court and decided that "it is not possible to agree to extend the benefits of pension to the employees of NWDA on Government of India pattern w.e.f. 1.1.1986", as a matter of Policy, Ministry of Finance has not been agreeing to introduction of pension scheme on GOI pattern in the Autonomous bodies. Further, the Government of India has introduced a new Defined Contribution Pension Scheme known as the New Pension Scheme (NPS) w.e.f. 1.1.2004 and the same has already been extended to the employees of autonomous institutions. Hence, no reason exists for extending the old pension scheme to the employees of autonomous bodies. Ministry of Finance has also issued instructions vide Order dated 30.6.2009 7 under which the employees of autonomous bodies who were recruited before the date of 1.1.2004 can also be covered under NPS. In view the factual position of this matter as noted above, this Tribunal does not find any of the grounds as raised in the OA acceptable or sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. It is further to be noted that the Apex Court specifically held in the said Civil Appeal Nos.712-713 of 2015 (T.M. Sampath and others vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and others) that the autonomous bodies having some nexus with the Government by itself would not bring them within the sweep of the expression „State‟ and each case must be determined on its own merits. Thus, the plea of the employees of NWDA to be treated at par with their counterparts in Central Government under sub rule (6)(iv) of Rule 2009 of General Financial Rules, merely on the basis of funding is not legally correct and further held that the claim to equality can be claimed when there is discrimination by the State between two persons who are similarly situated. The said discrimination cannot be invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two different authorities functioning as State under Article 12. Thus, the employees of NWDA cannot be said to be „Central Government Employees‟ as stated in the O.M. for its applicability. 8 9. In P.U.Joshi vs. Accountant General 632, the Apex Court held as under: (2003) 2 SCC "10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of 34 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." Further in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 408, the Apex Court held as follows:- 9 "When the State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to 35 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors sermonize quo any matter which under the constitution lies within the sphere of the legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers". The courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of posts, appointment on these posts, regularization, fixing pay scales, continuation in service, promotions, etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is highly improper for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional case. The relevant case law and philosophy of judicial restraint has been laid down by the Madras High Court in great detail in Rama Muthuramalingam vs. Dy. S.P. AIR 2005 Mad 1, and we fully agree with the views expressed therein." 10. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal is of the considered view that issue raised by the applicant in this OA is no more res integra, as the same has already been adjudicated and decided by the Apex Court in T.M. Sampath (supra) and it is also settled law that while exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority and the constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize quo any matter which under the constitution lies within the sphere of the legislature or executive, provided 10 these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers. Thus, the present OA is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."
11. We have carefully examined the issues involved in all the cases and arguments placed in support thereof with reference to the bye- laws of the NWDA vis a vis the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) Nos. 3106-3107 of 2012 and SLP(C) 20425/20426 of 2011 so also with the case filed before the CAT, PB, New Delhi by Sri Rohit Kumar Sethi and we do not find any substantial grounds to defer from the view already taken in the above cases, especially in view of the 36 O.A.Nos. 260/00050 of 2021 & Ors clear cut findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the employees of NWDA are governed by NWDA CPF Rules, 1982, the O.M. dated 01.05.1987 is not applicable to them and, that, the employees of NWDA are not the Central Government employees, at par with their counterparts and hence their claim of parity with Central Government Employees is defeated.
12. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we see no grounds to interfere in these OAs and, as a sequel, all these OAs stand dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS