Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Retired in M.Yogeshwar Raj vs Air India Ltd. on 25 August, 2025Matching Fragments
2. In the first Writ Petition No. 1876 of 2001, the prayer of the petitioner is to declare that his dismissal order is passed without jurisdiction and is non- est, by granting all the consequential benefits. In Writ Petition No. 809 of Mayur 4 943-WP-1876-2001.doc 2002, the prayer is to stay the effect, operation and implementation of the orders/decisions dated 06.08.2001 and 21.02.2002 issued by the respondent no. 1. In Writ Petition No. 1333 of 2002, the prayer is for the extension of the benefit of the pension scheme, which is made applicable to the employees retiring after 01.04.1994, claiming that it should be also made applicable to the employees, who retired prior to 01.04.1994. In all the writ petitions the facts as well as the prayers made by the petitioners are totally distinct from one another. However, the common thread in all the three writ petitions is the employer of the petitioners i.e., Air India Limited, which was the company owned by the Government, registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
"WRIT PETITION NO. 1333 of 2002 V. Pichumani vs. M/s. Air India Ltd."
14. In this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is regarding the cut off date prescribed for implementation of the pension scheme by the respondent no. 1 only to the employees who retired after 01.04.1994. The petitioners are the employees of Air India Limited (" AIL") who retired from service prior to 01.04.1994. According to the petitioner, there is no logic for the cut off date of 01.04.1994, for implementation of the pension scheme and thereby creating an artificial discrimination between two set of employees.
17. In the year 1998-99 the fund which was separately kept aside was transferred back to the profit and loss account. On 26.02.1994 the Air Corporation Act, 1953 was repealed and the company viz. Air India Limited, came into existence under the Companies Act, 1956. Some time around June 1996, pension scheme was introduced by respondent no. 1 with retrospective Mayur 14 943-WP-1876-2001.doc effect on 01.04.1994.
18. In the interregnum, during the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 3316 of 1988. The respondent management entered into an agreement in 1996, with Air India Employees Guild, making contributory pension scheme applicable to those employees who retired after 01.04.1994. According to the petitioner, in view of the fact that Writ Petition No. 3316 of 1988, was still pending before this Court, the Air India could not have entered into the agreement with Air India Employees Guild. The respondents ought not to have entered into an agreement relating to pension scheme with any union, when one of the union had already filed a writ petition which was pending consideration before this Court.
19. As a result of the agreement between the Air India Limited and the Air India Employees Guild, artificial discrimination is created between the individuals belonging to the same group. As a result of agreement entered by the Air India Limited, the Writ Petition No. 3316 of 1988, was dismissed.
20. The petitioners who retired before 1st April 1994 are excluded from the scheme, thus, by providing a cut off date without any logic has amounted to creating an artificial discrimination between the employees who were retired before 1st April 1994 and those who retired after 1st April 1994. Considering the service rendered by them in the Air India Limited from the days of its infancy, the pension scheme ought to have been made applicable to Mayur 15 943-WP-1876-2001.doc the petitioners as well. According to the petitioners, now it is well settled that, giving pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace but its a matter of right. There cannot be two methods of computing pension for retired employees.