Pension: Claim for pensionary benefits by employees of autonomous body (WALMI) – WALMI is an independent autonomous body and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act – The administration and management of the WALMI is through its Governing Council – WALMI has its own Rules, namely, WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980, governing the service conditions and the benefits available to its employees – The Rules, 1980 provide for the benefits of travelling allowance, daily allowance, medical reimbursement, house rent allowance etc. however, do not provide for pension – The Governing Council of WALMI also adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except the Pension Rules – Thus, WALMI is an independent autonomous entity governed by their own Rules and Regulations and the administration and management of WALMI is being run through/by its Governing Council – Even the State is not the Disciplinary Authority of the employees of WALMI – The Government by G.R. dated 08.11.2005 specifically took a policy decision that the employees of aided institutes, boards, corporations, are not entitled for grant of pensionary benefits and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 shall not be made applicable to such institutions – Even the proposal made by the then Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI was rejected by the State Government – Neither G.R. dated 08.11.2005 nor the decision of the State Government refusing to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI was challenged – Therefore, as such a conscious policy decision was taken not to adopt the Pension Rules for the WALMI employees applicable to the State Government employees – In the said facts and circumstances, High Court was not justified in directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. Pension: Claim for pensionary benefits by employees of autonomous body – The employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees – Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council, there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, the employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees – This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions – Pension.
Administrative law: Policy decision – Scope of interference by courts – Held: Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and have financial implications – Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and the undertakings and the Court cannot interfere lightly – Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences.
Autonomous body – The observations made by the High Court that as the salary and allowances payable to the employees of WALMI are being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State and/or that the WALMI is getting grant from the Government, there is no justification to treat the employees of WALMI differently than that of the State Government – Further, observations made by the High Court that the amount available with WALMI and deposited with E.P.F. towards the employee’s contribution itself is sufficient to meet the financial liability of the pensionary benefits to the employees and, therefore, there is no justification and/or reasonable basis for the State Government to refuse to extend the benefit of pension to the retired employees of WALMI – Held: These are all irrelevant considerations, so far as extending the pensionary benefits to employees of WALMI is concerned – WALMI has to run its administration from its own financial resources – WALMI has no financial powers of imposing any tax like a State and/or the Central Government and WALMI has to depend upon the grants to be made by the State Government – Further, merely because WALMI has a fund with itself, it cannot be a ground to extend the pensionary benefits – Grant of pensionary benefits is not a one-time payment – It is a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous liability in future towards the pensionary benefits – Therefore, merely because at one point of time, WALMI might have certain funds does not mean that for all times to come, it can bear such burden of paying pension to all its employees – In any case, it is ultimately for the State Government and WALMI to take their own policy decision whether to extend the pensionary benefits to its employees or not – The interference by the Judiciary in such a policy decision having financial implications and/or having a cascading effect is not at all warranted and justified.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the settled proposition of law, the Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications. Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences. [Para 10.4][145-G]
Secretary, Finance Department and others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, 1993 Supp
(1) SCC 153 : [1992] 1 SCR 897; State of Bihar and others v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and others, (2019) 18 SCC 301 : [2019] SCR
738 – referred to.
2. In the present case, WALMI being an autonomous body, registered under the Societies Registration Act, the employees of WALMI are governed by their own Service Rules and conditions, which specifically do not provide for any pensionary benefits; the Governing Council of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except the Pension Rules. Therefore, as such a conscious policy decision has been taken not to adopt the Pension Rules applicable to the State Government employees; that the State Government has taken such a policy decision in the year 2005 not to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of the aided institutes, boards, corporations etc.; and the proposal of the then Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI has been specifically turned down by the State Government. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the High Court is not justified in directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI, which is an independent autonomous entity. [Para 10.5][145-H; 146-A-C]
3. The observations made by the High court that as the salary and allowances payable to the employees of WALMI are being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State and/or that the WALMI is getting grant from the Government are all irrelevant considerations, so far as extending the pensionary benefits to its employees is concerned. WALMI has to run its administration from its own financial resources. WALMI has no financial powers of imposing any tax like a State and/or the Central Government and WALMI has to depend upon the grants to be made by the State Government. [Para 10.6][146-D-E]
4. So far as the observations made by the High Court that the amount available with WALMI and deposited with E.P.F. towards the employee’s contribution itself is sufficient to meet the financial liability of the pensionary benefits to the employees and, therefore, there is no justification and/or reasonable basis for the State Government to refuse to extend the benefit of pension to the retired employees of WALMI is concerned, merely because WALMI has a fund with itself, it cannot be a ground to extend the pensionary benefits. Grant of pensionary benefits is not a one-time payment. Grant of pensionary benefits is a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous liability in future towards the pensionary benefits. Therefore, merely because at one point of time, WALMI might have certain funds does not mean that for all times to come, it can bear such burden of paying pension to all its employees. [Para 10.7][146-E-H] Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Anr. v. Balbir Kumar Walia and Ors. (2021)
8 SCC 784; T.M. Sampath and Ors. v. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Ors., (2015) 5 SCC
333 : [2015] 1 SCR 748 – relied on.
State of Kerala and Anr. v. Naveena Prabhu and Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 649 : [2009] 2 SCR 958; Purshottam Lal and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (1973) 1 SCC 651; Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and Ors. v. G.S. Uppal and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 375 : [2008] 6 SCR 662 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.