Pension Rights of Absorbed Government Employees: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Verdict

The case of P. Bandopadhya & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. raised significant legal questions regarding the pensionary benefits of employees who were transferred from government service to a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). The dispute stemmed from the interpretation of an Office Memorandum governing pension rights, particularly for those employees who had not completed ten years of qualifying service before their absorption into the PSU.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated March 15, 2019, upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision that the appellants were not entitled to pensionary benefits under the Central Government’s pension scheme as they had not met the minimum qualifying service requirement. Instead, they were eligible for provident fund contributions with interest, as per Clause (c) of the relevant Office Memorandum.

Case Background

The appellants were former employees of the Overseas Communications Service (OCS), a department of the Government of India. On April 1, 1986, OCS was converted into a government company known as Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), now Tata Communications Limited. Initially, the employees continued working at VSNL on deputation from April 1, 1986, to January 1, 1990. Subsequently, they were given an option to either be permanently absorbed into VSNL or be transferred to the Surplus Staff Cell of the Central Government.

The appellants opted for absorption in VSNL, effective from January 2, 1990. A subsequent staff notice issued by VSNL on February 21, 1990, required employees to choose whether to retain their pensionary benefits under the Central Government’s rules or be governed by VSNL’s rules. The appellants chose to retain Central Government pension benefits.

However, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) later informed VSNL that employees who had less than ten years of qualifying service as of their absorption date would not be eligible for pension benefits. Instead, they would receive provident fund contributions with interest.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Bombay High Court, which dismissed their writ petition on April 26, 2006. They then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants, represented by Advocate Sanjay Kumar Mishra, contended that:

The Bombay High Court erred in denying them pensionary benefits.
Clause (b) of the Office Memorandum governed their case, as they had opted for Central Government pension benefits under Clause (a).
The Office Memorandum should be interpreted in isolation, without reference to the clarificatory document attached to the staff notice.
They were eligible for pensionary benefits regardless of their years of service since Clause (a) did not specify a minimum qualifying period.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, represented by Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, argued that:

The appellants’ case was covered by the earlier Bombay High Court judgment in S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which had attained finality.
The Office Memorandum categorically required a minimum of ten years of service to qualify for pension.
The appellants voluntarily opted for absorption in VSNL, severing their ties with the Central Government.
As per Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, pension is only granted after completing ten years of qualifying service.
The principle of res judicata barred the appellants from relitigating the issue.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings and ruled that:

“A conjoint reading of Rule 37 and Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 makes it abundantly clear that the appellants were not entitled to pensionary benefits as they did not have the minimum qualifying service of ten years.”

The Court further observed that:

“The appellants, having exercised the option to be absorbed in VSNL, were deemed to have retired from the Central Government on January 2, 1990. They could not now claim pensionary benefits, as they had not completed the requisite service period.”

The Court also dismissed the argument that the Office Memorandum should be read in isolation:

“The entitlement to pension under Clause (b) is qualified by the phrase ‘in accordance with the Central Government rules in force at that time.’ This clearly indicates that the existing pension rules, which required ten years of service, must be followed.”

The Court found no merit in the appellants’ claims and dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that pensionary benefits for absorbed employees must comply with the Central Government’s established service rules. Employees who have not completed the qualifying period cannot claim pension benefits by selectively interpreting an Office Memorandum.

Petitioner Name: P. Bandopadhya & Ors..
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 15-03-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: P. Bandopadhya & Ors vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category