Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 56788 OF 2017 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
1. SRI S. KRISHNAN,
S/O LATE SRI. K. SETHURAMAN, AGED 75 YEARS, RETIRED CHIEF FINANCE MANGER, M/S BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, AND R/AT No.C-104 OPP. P.O (K.R. ROAD) OORGAUM, KOLAR GOLD FIELD 563 120. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by VALLI (BY SRI O.K. ANANTHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR MARIMUTHU SRI NAIK V. S., ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ROOM No.312, "D" WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 001. -2-
2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ADMINISTRATION SECTION-V, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.
4. M/S BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED, (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) SUVARNA BHAVAN, OORGAUM P.O., KOLAR GOLD FIELD 563 120, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R1-R3; SRI T. RAJARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, IN O.A.No.170/00728/2016 DATED 11.08.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri. O.K. Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel for Sri.V.S. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B. Pramod, learned CGC for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. T. Rajaram, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The unsuccessful applicant in Original Application
No. 170/00728/2016 has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Foreman with
effect from 23.09.1961 as a monthly-rated employee in the Gold Mining Company, now known as Bharat Gold Mines Limited. He continued in that capacity until 29.02.1980, after which he was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from 01.03.1980. The said post was subsequently re- designated as Accounts Officer with effect from 15.03.1982.
-4- The petitioner was promoted to Assistant Manager with effect from 01.07.1985, and further elevated to the post of Manager with effect from 01.03.1998. He was again promoted as Chief Finance Manager with effect from 11.06.1998 and was confirmed in the said post with effect from 11.06.1999. The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.03.2001. The petitioner was receiving pension under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme. 3.1 However, subsequently, the petitioner made a claim for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and submitted representations for grant of pensionary benefits for his service rendered under the Central Government. An endorsement was issued holding that the petitioner was covered under the Employees’ Pension Scheme. 3.2 The Tribunal, however, rejected the petitioner’s application, holding that he had remained under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme throughout and that there was no document to indicate that he had ever been a member of the General Provident Fund Scheme. The Tribunal further observed that the representations were made after a lapse of -5- fifteen years from the date of voluntary retirement and, accordingly, dismissed the application.
4. Sri O.K. Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel for Sri V.S. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given an option. It is contended that, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 05.11.1964,
Government employees transferred to Autonomous Organizations had the option either to retain the pensionary benefits available under the Government Rules or to be governed by the rules of the Autonomous Body. It is further submitted that when the petitioner joined Respondent No.4, it was a Government of India undertaking, and its employees were treated as Central Government employees. Subsequently, Respondent No.4 was converted into a Public Sector Company, registered as Bharat Gold Mines Limited under the Companies Act. Since the petitioner’s appointment was as a Central Government employee, he is entitled to pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is submitted that the petitioner was not afforded the option in 1972 either to continue under the parent organization or to switch over to the
-6- Public Sector Undertaking. The Tribunal, however, rejected the application without considering these aspects.
5. Sri B. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the petitioner was appointed as a regular employee with effect from 01.03.1980 and voluntarily retired on 31.03.2001. It is submitted that the petitioner was treated as a Central Government employee when Respondent No.4 was taken over by the Government of India.
Respondent No.4 was converted into a Public Sector Undertaking with effect from 01.04.1972, and the monthly- rated and daily-rated employees were treated as absorbed by the company on the same terms and conditions. However, the benefits available to the petitioner as an autonomous employee were duly granted. It is further submitted that the petitioner made a representation after a lapse of sixteen years from retirement, seeking pensionary benefits under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application.
-7-
6. Sri T. Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4, reiterates the submissions made by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the
point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner’s claim for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, warrants consideration after a lapse of nearly fifteen years following voluntary retirement. In our considered view, the answer to this question is in the negative for the reasons stated hereunder.
8. The petitioner joined the service on 23.09.1961 on
temporary basis. Respondent No.4 was subsequently taken over by the Central Government, treating the employees of the undertaking as Central Government employees and continuing the terms and conditions of service applicable prior to the transfer. By order dated 07.03.1978, Respondent No.4 was converted into a Public Sector Company. The monthly-rated and daily-rated employees of the undertaking were absorbed by the company on the same terms and conditions as were applicable immediately prior to their absorption.
-8-
9. In the interregnum, Office Memorandum dated 05.11.1964 was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, regarding the settlement of pensions of Government
employees transferred to autonomous organizations consequent on the conversion of a Government department into an autonomous body. In terms of the said OM, permanent Government servants transferred were given the option either to retain the pensionary benefits available under the Government Rules or to be governed by the rules of the Autonomous Body. This option was made available to quasi- permanent and temporary employees after confirmation in the Autonomous Body.
10. The petitioner, throughout his service, remained
under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and never opted for the General Provident Fund Scheme at any point of time. Without exercising any option, he retired on voluntary retirement on 31.03.2001. The representation claiming pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was filed only in the year 2016, after a lapse of nearly fifteen years. Having failed to exercise the option that was available as early
-9- as 1964 under the OM dated 05.11.1964, it is too late for the petitioner to claim pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972. When the petitioner did not exercise the option at the
relevant time, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. At this stage, it is not permissible to alter the pension scheme when the petitioner himself did not avail the option provided.
11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find that
the order of the Tribunal is well reasoned. There is no error or illegality pointed out to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6