Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"22. It has been clarified in the memorandum of the present appeal that OPGC employees were provided only a one time lump sum payment towards pension as per the PE Department circular dated 23rd March, 2017 along with CPF. Consequently no comparison could be drawn between the employees of OMC and those of OPGC.

23. At this juncture, this Court notes that the letter dated 29th March, 2017 of the PE Department, Government of Odisha states that in PSUs under the gold category, six months' salary "as onetime payment towards pension at the time of retirement of the concerned employees", may be made.

28. The Court finds that OPGC employees in fact have no pensionary scheme governing them. The clarification issued by the Department of PE, Government of Odisha makes it clear that they were entitled only to a lump sum payment equivalent to six months' salary at the time of retirement. This crucial information was not considered by the learned Single Judge possibly because it was not placed before him.

29. As far as the OHPC is concerned, the history of its incorporation and the circumstances under which erstwhile employees the Government of Odisha or the OSEB were either redeployed to it or deputed or transferred to it, makes OHPC very different from OMC. This was the reason behind OHPC extending pensionary benefits to all its employees subject to certain stipulations. This was in the nature of continuation of the benefits they would have otherwise enjoyed had they continued as employees of Government of Odisha or the OSEB. The circumstances attending the employment of the contesting Respondents in OMC are quite different. They were directly employed by the OMC itself. Absent a pension scheme at the time of their employment, they cannot claim any vested right to such pension on the basis that they were on par with employees of OHPC or OPGC.

The Division Bench, while passing the order of remand, took note of the submissions of the learned State counsel in paragraph-21 as follows:-

"Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned AGA points out that there is a factual error in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In particular he points out that a query was addressed by the Appellants to OPGC whether in fact, any pension scheme governed its employees. By a letter dated 19th August 2019, OPGC confirmed to the Appellant that OPGC has not implemented any pension scheme for its employees at any point of time".

28. The Court finds that OPGC employees in fact have no pensionary scheme governing them. The clarification issued by the Department of PE, Government of Odisha makes it clear that they were entitled only to a lump sum payment equivalent to six months' salary at the time of retirement. This crucial information was not considered by the learned Single Judge possibly because it was not placed before him.

29. As far as the OHPC is concerned, the history of its incorporation and the circumstances under which erstwhile employees the Government of Odisha or the OSEB were either redeployed to it or deputed or transferred to it, makes OHPC very different from OMC. This was the reason behind OHPC extending pensionary benefits to all its employees subject to certain stipulations. This was in the nature of continuation of the benefits they would have otherwise enjoyed had they continued as employees of Government of Odisha or the OSEB. The circumstances attending the employment of the contesting Respondents in OMC are quite different. They were directly employed by the OMC itself. Absent a pension scheme at the time of their employment, they cannot claim any vested right to such pension on the basis that they were on par with employees of OHPC or OPGC.