Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. By a Circular No. 21 of 1984 the concerned deputationists if they so desired, were asked to give an option in terms of the said Circular. In para 3 of the said Circular it was clearly mentioned that the F.C.I, will not bear any liability in respect of the service rendered prior to the date of permanent absorption in the service of the Corporation. In para 2(i) it was also mentioned that the employees who opt for absorption will be treated as direct recruits.

7. The concerned deputationists duly consented to and endorsed on the said option accepting the terms of the said Circular 21 of 1984 and were absorbed with the appellant authority with effect from 1st July, 1984.

25. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellants-FCI authorities that the circular dated 21st November, 1996 is contrary to the Food Corporation of India (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) Regulations, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'DCRG Regulations') and it cannot be legally valid since an administrative order cannot override a statutory regulation. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contentions of the appellants herein in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The DCRG Regulations was made in the year 1967 under the Food Corporation Act, 1964 for providing payment of gratuity to the employees. DCRG Regulations continued even after the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 came into force in respect of such of the employees of the F.C.I. who were not covered by the said 1972 Act because of the ceiling limit of salary provided in the said Act. In 1994 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was amended and the ceiling limit of salary was lifted, as a result whereof all employees in the establishment of F.C.I. came within the purview of the 1972 Act as amended by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 1994. The aforesaid Act thus covered the field and in view of Section 14 of the 1972 Act, the provisions thereof would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than the said Act or any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than the said Act.

26. Mr. Gupta has rightly submitted that DCRG Regulations is not an Act and must yield to the Parliamentary Act. In any event, in view of the overriding provision of Section 14 of 1972 Act, DCRG Regulations has become redundant. It is only the better terms contained in the contract etc. which are specifically saved in view of the clear provision of Section 4(5) of the said Act. Realising the aforesaid legal position, F.C.I. authorities issued the circular dated 21st November, 1996 wherein it has been specifically provided that all future claims of gratuity are to be decided as per the 1972 Act but in view of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under DCRG Regulations regarding counting of prior service will continue to remain effective. The relevant Clause of the aforesaid circular dated 21st November, 1996 is set out hereunder:

38. In the instant case upon the 1972 Act becoming applicable to all F.C.I. employees irrespective of their pay by reason of the 1994 Amendment, the DCRG Regulations, which is at the highest a subordinate legislation, ceases to be operative except in respect of the better terms as protected by the circular dated 21st November, 1996 which was issued by the F.C.I. authorities in the context of Section 4(5) of the 1972 Act. Hence, the situation of the existence of two packages as in the case of Beed Districts Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. JT 2006(9) (SC) 260 (para 14) (supra) is absent in the present case. Because of the 1994 Amendment of the 1972 Act, there is only one package of gratuity available to F.C.I. employees, namely that under the Act. Benefits of Gratuity under DCRG Regulations are no longer applicable as a package. It is only the better terms of DCRG Regulations, namely counting of past service in State Government, protected under Section 4(5) of the Act.