Karnataka High Court
M. Suryanarana vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, on 10 February, 2016
Author: B.S Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP.No.66731/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.66731/2011 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
M.Suryanarayana,
Aged about 68 years,
Shanthi Prashanth Nivas,
2nd Cross, M.J.Nagar,
Hospet - 583 203,
Bellary District. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri S.S.Patil & Sri Santhosh B.Mane, Advs.)
AND:
1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director
M.M.T.C.Ltd.,
Core-I "Scope Complex",
7, Industrial Area,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
2. The Secretary & the Board of Trustees,
M.M.T.C.,
Super Annuation cum Family Annuity Scheme,
Core-I "Scope Complex",
7, Industrial Area,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
..RESPONDENTS
(By Sri J.S.Shetty, Adv.)
WP.No.66731/2011
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the letter dated
05.08.2011 vide Annexure-P denying the request of the
petitioner to consider his claim of extending the pension
benefits under the Employees Contributory Superannuation
Cum Family Annuity Scheme of the Corporation and etc.
This writ petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing
'B' Group, this day the Court made the following:-
ORDER
1. This petition has checkered history. Petitioner has been approaching this Court again and again. His grievance is that he has not been paid benefits which have been extended to other similarly placed employees in the matter of settling his monthly pension in terms of existing scheme. Last of the orders which this Court has passed was on 16.08.2010 in W.P.No.16062/2006. In the said order, which is produced at Annexure-G, this Court has referred to the earlier order passed in W.P.No.33259/2003 disposed of on 08.02.2005 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.304/2006. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by making following observations in paragraphs 3 & 4:
"3. It is unfortunate that, the respondents should have settled the benefits within the stipulated time without pressuring the petitioner to approach the Courts repeatedly. The respondents WP.No.66731/2011 3 should have settled the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, which arises out of the aforementioned scheme. In this matter also, though the respondents are served, they have remained absent.
4. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is entitled to any benefit under the said Scheme, the same should be complied with by the respondents.
In fact, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33259/2003 needs to be complied in letter and spirit if not, already complied.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to settle the claim of the petitioner arising under the scheme as early as possible, if, not already settled, but not later than the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order."
2. After this order was passed, petitioner gave a representation dated 22.11.2010 along with claim of annuity amount in a sum of Rs.4,76,415/- after deducting the amount already paid. Copy of this representation is produced at Annexure-H. The calculation made by the petitioner specifying his claim was also enclosed to the said representation. As the annuity of the petitioner was not settled, petitioner was constrained to move this Court by filing a contempt petition in WP.No.66731/2011 4 CCC (Civil) No.2020/2011. In the said contempt petition, an affidavit was filed by the respondents herein stating that the claim of the petitioner was considered in terms of the order passed by this Court and a sum of Rs.19,063/- was found due and payable to the complainant, therefore, a demand draft dated 26.05.2011 had been drawn in the name of the complainant. Recording this submission and reserving liberty to the complainant/petitioner herein to agitate his claim before the appropriate forum, if he was disputing calculation made by the respondent - MMTC Limited, contempt proceedings were dropped vide order dated 02.06.2011.
3. Thereafter, again Annexure-N - representation dated 09.07.2011 was given by the petitioner explaining how he was entitled for a sum of Rs.4,57,353/-. He also enclosed a comparative statement of one Yelloji Rao. In the representation, petitioner specifically referred to Yelloji Rao stating that he was similarly placed, but, he was extended better pension benefits, as a result of which, he was getting pension of Rs.1,852/- per month from the date of his eligibility at a higher rate than petitioner. Thereafter, impugned communication Annexure-P has been issued by MMTC Limited WP.No.66731/2011 5 on 05.08.2011 reiterating the earlier stand taken by it and stating that the erstwhile Pension Trust had already refunded the amount available with them to the petitioner and MMTC Limited, being a facilitator of the Scheme not operator thereof, could not consider the request of the petitioner for pensionary benefits. It was also informed as per the impugned communication that the Trustees of the erstwhile Trust had decided to windup the Trust as per the Trust Rules as they were finding it difficult to operate the Scheme. Hence, consideration of the case of the petitioner by MMTC Limited did not arise.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties.
5. Petitioner's contention is that the Trust was an irrevocable Trust; Yelloji Rao got eligibility to secure the annuity later in point of time compared to the petitioner; Yelloji Rao was settled with higher pension/annuity without raising any objections, but in the case of petitioner similar treatment has not been given, despite the petitioner approaching this Court and securing directions from time to time. WP.No.66731/2011 6
6. In the impugned communication issued, respondent No.1 has not referred to, nor considered the objections filed by the petitioner with regard to the treatment given to Yelloji Rao and the discrimination practiced against the petitioner. Under what circumstances, Yelloji Rao's pension was settled at higher scale is not forthcoming from Annexure-P communication. Though certain assertions are made in the statement of objections and the additional statement of objections assigning some reasons, it is well established that reasons assigned in the affidavit cannot support the order passed as they cannot be read as part of the impugned order/communication.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trust is created by MMTC Limited and it is the obligation of the Company to pay the annuity. Though this aspect of the matter is countered by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is unnecessary to express final opinion on this aspect as the impugned communication has to be set aside only on the ground that important question as to why petitioner was not treated on par with Yelloji Rao has not been addressed in the impugned communication.
WP.No.66731/20117
8. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned communication - Annexure-P is set aside. Respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, particularly keeping in mind the treatment given to the so called similarly placed person Yelloji Rao and pass fresh orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS