http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SMT. PREM DEVI & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/04/1989

BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) SAIKIA, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1989 SCR  (2) 600        1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 330  1989 SCALE  (1)1129

ACT:     Civil  Services:  Nari Niketan--Institution  funded  and controlled  by  State taken over and staff absorbed  in  its services--Whether employees entitled to pensionary benefits.

HEADNOTE:     An  institution  being fully funded by  the  respondent- Administration  was  taken over and the affected  stuff  ab- sorbed  in its services in the time scale of pay. The  peti- tioners who comprised the said staff were not given pension- ary  benefits upon retirement. They, therefore, filed  these writ petitions.     This court in a petition by one of the affected  employ- ees (Smt. Rekha Mehta v. Delhi Administration, W.P. (C)  No. 539  of 1987 decided on April 4, 1988) had directed  payment of pensionary benefits. However, the case of the  respondent was that the said decision having been rendered in a partic- ular case, it would not be applicable to the petitioners  in the instant case. Allowing the writ petitions,     HELD:  The services in an institution under the  control of and fully funded by the respondent-Administration  having been  taken  over by it and the staff absorbed in  the  time scale  of pay, it could not be said that they would  not  be entitled to ordinary facilities like the pensionary benefits available to other staff. [602D]     The case of one of the employees having been decided  by this court, it was expected that without resorting to any of the  methods, the other employees identically  placed  would have been given the same benefit. [602G]     [The  petitioners to be paid pensionary benefits  within three months. The matter to be considered at the appropriate level  to see that such things do not happen in  future,  so that  unnecessary  litigation  is avoided and  cost  to  the public exchequer is saved.] 601

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)  No.  1055 and 1088 of 1988.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. ) R.P. Kapur for the petitioners.     V.C.  Mahajan, Mrs. Kitty K. Manglam and Ms.  A.  Subha- shini for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     OZA, J. After hearing the learned counsel for parties it clearly emerges that the two petitioners and one Smt.  Rekha Mehta who had filed a petition earlier were all the  employ- ees of one institution known as Nari Kiketan. This  institu- tion  was fully funded by Delhi Administration and was  con- trolled  by  Board managing the affairs. It is also  not  in dispute that all the three persons mentioned above, the  two petitioners  and Smt. Rekha Mehta, are identically  situated in respect of their conditions of service.     On 1.12.79 the Board was superseded and the  institution was taken over by the Delhi Administration and the staff  of this  institution  Nari Niketan was absorbed  in  the  Delhi Administration   vide  Order  No.   4-2(3)-79-DSW-ESTT-dated 27.2.80.  By this order about 20 officials were absorbed  in time  scale  and pay as were being drawn by  them  prior  to 1.12.79.  These  facts are not disputed. It is also  not  in dispute that Smt. Rekha Mehta when after retirement was  not given pensionary benefits she filed a petition in this Court No. (C) 539 of 1987. This Court passed the order in the case of Smt. Rekha Mehta as:               "Rule  issued  and  made  absolute.  Arguments               heard. The respondents arc directed to  calcu-               late the pension and other retiral benefits of               the  petitioner  taking into account  her  an-               tecedent of service before absorption and  pay               the same as early as possible and in any event               not  later than three months from  today.  The               respondent  will pay costs quantified  at  Rs.               2,000 to the petitioner."     Thereafter  these two petitioners have again filed  writ petitions alleging that they have retired and therefore they are  entitled  to the same pensionary  benefits  which  were given to Smt. Rekha Mehta as they belong to the services  of Nan Niketan institution, subsequently 602 absorbed in the services of Delhi Administration. It is also not in dispute that these petitioners repeatedly  approached the respondent Delhi Administration and made representations for getting the pensionary benefits as were granted to  Smt. Rekha  Mehta  after the orders were passed by  this  Hon’ble Court.  Unfortunately in spite of all this nothing was  done consequently these two writ petitions were filed before this Court.  Learned counsel appearing for the Delhi  Administra- tion  attempted to contend that the decision in the case  of Smt.  Rekha Mehta will not be applicable but  realising  the difficulty  he  only  read through the  affidavit  filed  in return wherein a long story as to how the papers tossed from department  to  department and ultimately  no  decision  was taken. There is also reference to the Govt. of India, Minis- try  of Personnel & Training, Public Grievances  &  Pensions and  it is stated that in the opinion of  these  departments the  judgment of this Court in Smt. Rekha Mehta was a  judg- ment  in the particular case only and these petitioners  are not entitled to pensionary benefits. It is unfortunate  that such  a simple affair where the services in  an  institution under  the  control of the Delhi  Administration  and  fully funded  by the Delhi Administration when taken over and  the staff absorbed in the Delhi Administration it could be  said that  they will not be entitled to ordinary facilities  like the pensionary benefits when available to other staff of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Delhi  Administration and apart from it when in one case  of an employee of the institution whose services were  absorbed in  the Delhi Administration has been decided by this  Court still  the  counter affidavit indicates the working  of  the departmental  officials  who chose to opine that it  is  not binding on the Go, vt. That was a case only of a  particular employee in spite of the fact that Union of India is alleged as  a party. It has chosen not to keep a counsel present  at the  time of hearing of these petitions. All  these  circum- stances go to indicate as to how the matters are handled  by our  Administration resulting in unnecessary litigation  and heavy  expenditure on the public exchequer. Apart from,  the expenditure of litigation the costs that have to be paid  in such litigation.     The  facts as are not in dispute the case of one of  the employees having been decided by this Court it was  expected that  without  resorting  to any of the  methods  the  other employees identically placed would have been given the  same benefit,  which  would  have avoided  not  only  unnecessary litigation but also of the waste of time and the movement of files  and  papers  which only waste  public  time.  Learned counsel  only  read out the counter and stated that  it  was thought  that the case of Smt. Rekha Mehta will not  be  ap- plicable  to  the case of the present  petitioners  although learned counsel had no argument in law to sup- 603 port such a contention. The petitions are therefore  allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be paid  their pensionary  benefits within 3 months from today. It is  fur- ther  directed  that the petitioners shall  be  entitled  to costs of Rs.2500 in each case. It is also directed that  the matter  will be considered at the appropriate level  to  see that such things do not happen in future so that unnecessary litigation  is avoided and costs to the public exchequer  is saved. P.S.S                                              Petitions allowed. 604