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

PETITIONER: BHARAT PETROLEUM (ERSTWHILE BURMAH SHELL)MANAGEMENT STAFF PE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1990

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MISRA RANGNATH PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1228            1990 SCR  (1) 962  1990 SCC  (2) 356        JT 1990 (1)   408  1990 SCALE  (1)453

ACT:     Labour  and Services: Pension--Restoration  of  commuted portion  of  pension--Retired  staff  of  Bharat   Petroleum (erstwhile Burmah Shell)--Whether and when entitled to.

HEADNOTE:     Some  of the erstwhile employees of Burmah Shell, in  an earlier  writ petition, claimed restoration of the  commuted portion  of pension and enhancement of pension on  par  with the  pensioners of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation  Limited, (HPCL). At the time of hearing, the claim for restoration of the  commuted  portion of pension was given up.  This  Court accepted the claim of the petitioners as regards enhancement of  pension and ordered a sizeable hike in the pension.  The present writ petition claims the same relief which was given up  at  the time of hearing of the  earlier  writ  petition, viz., restoration of commuted portion of pension.  Admitted- ly, HPCL had deferred its decision till 1992 in this regard.     On  behalf  of  the petitioners it  was  contended  that though, HPCL has deferred its decision till 1992, the  peti- tioners  were not precluded from approaching this Court  and that the earlier decision did not operate as res judicata.     On  behalf of the respondents it was contended  that  as soon  as HPCL revises its scheme the petitioners would  also be  entitled  to the benefit thereof and that grant  of  the relief  earlier would create disparity between  the  persons who receive pension from HPCL and those from the Respondent. Dismissing the writ petition, this Court,     HELD:  1.1. It would be inappropriate to  interfere  and grant  the  relief as prayed for at this  stage  since  that would  create  disparity between the personnel  who  receive pension  from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.  and  the respondent Corporation. [965B] 963     1.2.  This Court has already held that the retired  per- sonnel  of Burmah Shell would be entitled to a hike in  pen- sion at par with pensioners of HPCL. (W.P. No. 590/87 decid- ed  on 11.5. 1988). HPCL has not accorded to its  pensioners the relief of restoration of the commuted portion of pension after the expiry of 15 years. The order passed by this Court

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

is  as recent as May 11, 1988. After such a short  time  lag and  in the absence of any substantial change in  the  posi- tion, it is not desirable to entertain the claim for  resto- ration of commuted pension. The petitioners are governed  by a  special scheme, which is not at par with  Government  em- ployees  or the other Public Sector  Undertakings.  [964G-H; 965A]     Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India, [1987] 1 SCC 142, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 215 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) M.S.  Gujral,  Ms.  Kirti Misra and B .B.  Sawhney  for  the Petitioners.     G.B.  Pari, O.C. Mathur, Ms. Meera and S. Sukumaran  for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     K. RAMASWAMY, J. This writ petition under Art. 32  filed on  behalf of about 450 erstwhile employees of  M/s.  Burmah Shell retired between May 1, 1979 and December 1984, is  for a  mandamus or direction to the respondents to restore  full pension  (which had been commuted) to the petitioner Nos.  2 to 5 and others similarly situated upon the expiry of 12-1/2 years from date of retirement in case of those retired prior to April 1985 and after 11-1/3 years to those retired  prior to April 1, 1985 from their respective dates of  retirement. They  claim that though in their previous Writ Petition  No. 590/87 disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on  May 11,  1988  of which one of us (Ranganath Misra,  J.)  was  a member, a hike in the pension effective from May 1, 1988 was granted.  Consideration of the present relief had been  left over for a later period. Admittedly, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 590/87 sought two reliefs, namely, (i) restora- tion  of the commuted portion of the pension, and  (ii)  en- hancement  of  pension  or par with the  pensioners  of  the Hindustan  Petroleum Corporation Limited, for short  ’HPCL’. During the course of hearing, claim for the 964 first relief was given up and submission was confined to the second  relief. This Court accepted the contentions  of  the petitioners and ordered a seizeable hike in the pension. The relief in this writ petition squarely covers relief No. 1 of Writ Petition No. 590/87. But the ground on which the  peti- tioners  have  again come before the Court  within  a  short spell is that their hope of the respondent’s sister-concern, namely,  HPCL, restoring commuted portion of pension to  its pensioners has been smashed as it has deferred its  decision on the issue till 1992. Their learned counsel contends  that in  Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India, [1987] 1 SCC  142 this Court upheld the 15 years formula and directed that the commuted  portion of the pension should be restored  to  all the civil servants as well as the armed forces personnel  of the  Central Government effective from April 1, 1985. It  is maintained that as principle the same would be applicable to the  petitioners  as well. The respondents, it  is  claimed, have  to  bear  an additional liability of  only  a  sum  of Rs.1,02,41,635 out of its huge profits without in any manner affecting its functioning. When the employees of the Central Govt. and other Public Sector Undertakings are receiving the same  benefits,  the denial thereof to  the  petitioners  is arbitrary,  unjust  and unfair and offends Art.  14  of  the

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

Constitution.  There is no scheme in vouge in  other  Public Sector  Undertakings like commuted pension scheme except  in HPCI.  Though HPCL has postponed action in this regard  till 1992,  the  petitioners are not precluded to  approach  this Court  for  redressal  and the previous  decision  does  not operate  as  res  judicata. This Court  having  accorded  in equity  benefits of pension, which is a legal right  of  the petitioner, the relief also may be granted to the  petition- ers.     Shri  Pai,  learned  counsel for  the  respondents,  has resisted all these contentions. The short question is wheth- er  it is a fit case for interference and issue of a  direc- tion  to the respondents to give the relief as  prayed  for. Admittedly,  the  petitioners claimed this  relief  in  Writ Petition No. 590/87. This Court after appropriate considera- tion  held  that a sizeable hike in pension would  meet  the ends  of  justice.  Admittedly, Burmah Shell  has  a  unique scheme  known as "Burmah Shell India Pension Fund" with  its own rules. This Court held that the retired personnel  would be  entitled to a hike in pension at par with pensioners  of HPCL.  Admittedly, HPCL has not accorded to  its  pensioners the relief of restoration of the commuted portion of pension after the expiry of 15 years. The order passed by this Court is  as recent as May 11, 1988. After such a short  time  lag and  in the absence of any substantial change in  the  posi- tion, in our considered view, it is not desirable to  enter- tain the claim for restoration of commuted pen- 965 sion. Admittedly, the petitioners are governed by a  special scheme, which is not at par with Government employees or the other  Public Sector Undertakings. In all fairness Shri  Pai also has stated that as and when HPCL revises its scheme the petitioners  would be entitled to the same  benefits.  Grant or’ the relief at this stage would create disparity  between the  personnel  who receive pension  from HPCL and  the  re- spondents.  We find sufficient justification in the  conten- tion of Shri Pai. So we do not feel justified that it  would be  appropriate to interfere and grant the relief as  prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but without costs. G.N.                                                Petition dismissed. 966