Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusBHAGWAN & ORS.
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 29
- Decided
- 10 January 2022
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- M R SHAH
Holding
Employees of WALMI are not entitled to pensionary benefits, and the High Court's order directing the State to extend such benefits is quashed.
Summary
The Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, operates as an autonomous body with its own service rules that do not provide for pension benefits. The State of Maharashtra, in a 2005 policy decision, resolved that employees of aided institutes and autonomous bodies like WALMI would not be covered by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and rejected WALMI's proposal to extend pension benefits. The Bombay High Court, however, directed the State to grant pension benefits to WALMI employees, citing equality, the institute's funding from the Consolidated Fund, and the sufficiency of its EPF balance. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the State's policy decision is a valid exercise of discretion, that parity cannot be claimed by employees of an autonomous body governed by separate service rules, and that courts should not interfere with such financial policy decisions. Consequently, the High Court order was quashed and the appeals were allowed, confirming that WALMI employees are not entitled to pensionary benefits on par with State Government employees.
Issues considered
- The employees of WALMI are entitled to pensionary benefits on par with State Government employees.
- Whether the High Court could direct the State to extend pension benefits to employees of an autonomous body.
- Whether the State's policy decision to exclude WALMI employees from pension benefits is subject to judicial review.
- Whether the principle of equality under Article 14 applies to the denial of pension benefits to WALMI employees.
Legislation cited
Subjects
pensionautonomous bodypolicy decisionjudicial reviewequalityArticle 14Societies Actfinancial implicationsservice rules
Judgment
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 129 129
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. A
v.
BHAGWAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7682-7684 of 2021)
JANUARY 10, 2022 B
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
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 C
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 D
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 – E
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 F
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 G
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 H
129
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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 –
H It is a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. BHAGWAN 131
liability in future towards the pensionary benefits – Therefore, merely A
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 –
B
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 C
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. D
[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, E
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 F
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 G
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
H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A 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]
B
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
C 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]
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. BHAGWAN 133
State of Kerala and Anr. v. Naveena Prabhu and Ors. A
(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.
B
Case Law Reference
[2009] 2 SCR 958 referred to Para 4.5
[1992] 1 SCR 897 referred to Para 5.3
[2019] SCR 738 referred to Para 5.3 C
(1973) 1 SCC 651 referred to Para 5.3
[2008] 6 SCR 662 referred to Para 5.3
[2015] 1 SCR 748 relied on Para 10.2
(2021) 8 SCC 784 relied on Para 10.3 D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7682-
7684 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.748
of 2014 and Order dated 05.09.2019 in Review Application (C) Nos.148 E
and 191 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.748 of 2014.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7685-7687 and 7688-7690 of 2021.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, F
Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advs. for the Appellants.
J. N. Singh, Saurabh Mishra, Ms. Sadhana Singh, Yashodeep
Deshmukh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
dated 20.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.748 of 2014 and other
H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A connected writ petitions by which the High Court has allowed the said
writ petitions and has directed the State Government to extend the
pensionary benefits to the employees of Water and Land Management
Institute, the State of Maharashtra and another have preferred the present
appeals. The State preferred review applications which came to be
dismissed.
B
2. That Water and Land Management Institute (hereinafter
referred to as “WALMI”) is a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, which has its own Memorandum of Association.
WALMI is being administered by its Governing Council. WALMI is an
autonomous institution governed by its own Rules and Regulations.
C WALMI came into existence in the year 1980 under the World Bank
Project of the Irrigation Department. The funds and properties of the
Society and their entire management vests in the Governing Council.
The main objects for which the Society has been formed are as under:-
“(a) With a view to promoting advancement of science and
D acquisition of scientific knowledge to provide instructions
and training in all branches of science both theoretical and
applied and in particular in Water Management and Land
Development for Irrigation and agriculture.
(b) To establish an institution for imparting instructions and
E training and conducting research in Water Management and
Land Development for irrigation and agriculture.
(c) To prescribe courses for instruction and training in Water
Management and Land Development for irrigation and
agriculture and hold examinations and grant certificates,
F diplomas etc.
(d) To seek affiliation of the said institute with Universities and
other appropriate academic bodies both in India and abroad
and to obtain recognition of the said courses conducted at
the said institute and for the said examinations conducted
G by the Institute and diplomas, certificates, etc., granted by
the Institute.
(e) To provide consultancy service to the Government Local
Bodies and other organisations in water management and
land development for irrigation and agriculture.
H
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. BHAGWAN 135
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
(f) To undertake research and conduct experiments in various A
aspects of water management and land development arid
to collaborate with other similar organisations for research
and development.
(g) To send within the country and abroad for specialised
training in Water Management and Land Development for B
irrigation and agriculture person including members of staff
of the said Institute and bear and pay the costs of such
training.
(h) To start, conduct, print, publish and exhibit any magazines,
periodicals, newspapers, books, pamphlets or posters that C
may be considered desirable for the promotion of the objects
of the Society.
(i) To invest and deal with the funds of the Society.
(j) To make rules and bye-laws for the conduct of the affairs
of the society and Institute and from time to time add, to D
amend, vary or rescind them.
(k) Make donations to such persons or institutions whether of
cash or any other assets, as may be, that are directly or
indirectly conducive to any of the Society’s objects, or
otherwise expedient and in particular, to remunerate any E
person or corporations introducing, or assisting the Society.
(l) establish and support or aid the establishment of, and support
associations, institutions, societies, funds, trusts and
conveniences for the benefit of the employees of ex-
employees or persons having connections of such person F
and in particular friendly or other benefit of societies and to
grant pension, allowances, gratuities, either by way of annual
payments, or by way of lump sum and to make payments
towards insurance to form and contribute to provident and
benefit funds to or for such persons.
G
(m) Generally to do and execute all such other acts, matters
and things as are incidental or conductive to or necessary
for attainment of the above objects or any of them.”
2.1 The Governing Council in its meeting held on 11.08.1980 framed
the WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980, which provided the service H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A conditions including certain allowances to be paid to its employees. It
was provided in the said Rules that the Service Rules made by the
Government of Maharashtra for its employees (as may be amended/
modified from time to time) shall apply to the employees of the Institute
unless they are repugnant to the Rules made or may be made by the
Institute. It is specifically provided that Government Rules for Pension,
B
Provident Fund and Gratuity shall not, however, apply. The Governing
Council in its 41st meeting held on 31.01.1995 reiterated that the Governing
Council has made the Establishment / Service Rules of the Government
of Maharashtra applicable to WALMI except the Rules for Pension,
Provident Fund and Gratuity. It was also mentioned that the Contributory
C Provident Fund Rules framed by WALMI have been made applicable.
Grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Grant-in-aid
Institutes/Corporation etc. came to be discussed in the meeting of the
Cabinet Ministers held on 30.01.1997. After due deliberation, the Cabinet
approved the proposal to the effect that no pensionary benefits should
be granted to the employees working in the Institute receiving Grant-in-
D
aid, Corporations etc.
2.2 But thereafter, the Governing Council of WALMI in its 44th
meeting held on 13.08.1997 resolved to send proposal to the Government
to grant pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. The then
Director General of WALMI issued a communication dated 12.10.2000
E to the Secretary, Irrigation Department and gave his opinion in affirmative
for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. But the
Government of Maharashtra through its Finance Department issued a
resolution dated 31.10.2005 and introduced a new Contributory Pension
Scheme for the Government servants who are recruited on or after
F 01.11.2005 in the State Government service. On 08.11.2005, the State
Government through its Finance Department issued another resolution
and resolved that the employees serving in Grant-in-aid Institutes,
Mandals, Corporations etc. are not entitled for grant of pensionary benefits
and the Pension Rules shall not be made applicable to them.
G 2.3 Again, the Director General of WALMI issued a communication
dated 06.02.2008 to the Secretary, Irrigation Department and prayed for
grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. By
communication dated 12.07.2012, the Finance Department of the State
Government again reiterated that the employees of WALMI are not
entitled for pensionary benefits and the Contributory Provident Fund
H shall not be applicable to them.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. BHAGWAN 137
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
2.4 Hence some of the employees of WALMI filed a Writ Petition A
No.1507 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Aurangabad Bench. The High Court directed the State to take a decision
on the proposal dated 06.02.2008 within a period of six months. Vide
communication dated 05.03.2013, the State Government informed that
the request for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI
B
has been rejected.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the communication
dated 05.03.2013, rejecting the proposal/request for grant of pensionary
benefits to the employees of WALMI, the employees/ex-employees of
WALMI preferred the present writ petitions before the High Court and
prayed to direct the State Government to grant pensionary benefits, which C
are available to the State Government employees, also to the employees
of WALMI.
2.6 That by the impugned common judgment and order, the High
Court has allowed the writ petitions and has quashed and set aside the
communication dated 05.03.2013 of the State Government refusing to D
extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI and
consequently has directed to extend pensionary benefits to the employees
of WALMI, with arrears w.e.f. 06.05.2013. While allowing the writ
petitions, the High Court has observed that the amount available with
WALMI and deposited with E.P.F. towards the employee’s contribution E
itself is sufficient to meet the financial liability of the pensionary benefits
to employees and that there does not appear to be any reasonable basis
for the State Government to refuse to extend the benefit of pension to
the retired employees of WALMI. The High Court has also further
observed that as the WALMI institute essentially performs educational
and research activities and receives 100% grant from the State F
Government, that the service conditions of employees are regulated by
Maharashtra Civil Services Rules and that the employees have been
from time to time extended the benefits of wage, pay scale revision on
par with the Government employees. That the employees are being paid
out of the Consolidated Fund of the State Government and hence there G
is no justification to treat the employees of the WALMI differently than
that of the State Government employees. Observing so, the High Court
has observed and held that the denial of pensionary benefits to the
employees of WALMI would be discriminatory and violative of the
principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A 2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court directing the State to
extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of the WALMI, the
State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Irrigation Department and
Finance Department have preferred the present appeals.
B 3. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General assisted by Shri
Sachin Patil has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri J.N. Singh,
learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondents - original
writ petitioners.
4. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on
C behalf of the State of Maharashtra has vehemently submitted that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a
grave error in quashing and setting aside the conscious decision taken
by the State Government not to extend the pensionary benefits to the
employees of WALMI. It is submitted that the High Court has failed to
appreciate that the WALMI is an autonomous body and a Society
D registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860
and is an independent entity governed by its own Rules and Regulations.
It was therefore submitted that the employees of WALMI cannot be put
to par with the State Government employees.
4.1 It was further submitted that under the Service Rules applicable
E to the employees of WALMI, as such, there is no provision for pension/
pensionary benefits. It was submitted that under the Rules and as per
the decision taken by the Governing Council, only Gratuity Rules applicable
to the State Government employees are made applicable.
4.2 It was further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor General
F appearing on behalf of the State that as such when a conscious decision
had been taken by the State Government after due deliberations, it can
be said to be a policy decision and it was decided that the Pension Rules
applicable to the State Government employees shall not be made
applicable to the employees of WALMI and therefore they are not entitled
G to the pensionary benefits, the High Court ought not to have interfered
with such a policy decision in exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor General
that WALMI is an independent autonomous body, a Society registered
under the Societies Registration Act and the administration and
H
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. BHAGWAN 139
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
management vest with its Governing Council. It was submitted that the A
employees of WALMI are governed by its own Service Rules, which
specifically prohibits the pensionary benefits to its employees and only
Gratuity Rules are made applicable and, therefore, the employees of the
WALMI cannot be put at par with the Government employees.
4.4 It is submitted that even otherwise, whether to grant and/or B
extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of the WALMI, which
is an autonomous body, is a policy decision, which was not required to be
interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that to interfere with
such a policy decision would not be permissible while exercising powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heavy reliance was placed C
upon a decision of this Court in the case of T.M. Sampath and Ors.
Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Ors., (2015) 5
SCC 333. It was submitted that the above was a case with respect to
the employees of National Water Development Agency (NWDA), which
was also established as a Society and which was an autonomous body. D
The employees of the NWDA claimed pensionary benefits on par with
the Central Government employees claiming parity between them. This
Court observed and held that the principle of parity shall be inapplicable
to employees of NWDA since NWDA cannot be treated as an
instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India
merely on the basis that its funds are granted by the Central Government. E
It was submitted that a claim for equality can be made when there is
discrimination by the State between two similarly situated persons. It
was further observed that discrimination cannot be invoked in cases
where discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two different
authorities functioning as State under Article 12 of the Constitution. F
4.5 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of
Kerala and Anr. Vs. Naveena Prabhu and Ors., (2009) 3 SCC
649, it was submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor General that in
financial matters Court would abstain from issuing directions having
financial implications. It was submitted that the Court would not generally G
interfere with a Government’s policy decision.
4.6 It was further urged that in the present case, the High Court
has not at all considered the financial implications on extending the
pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. It is submitted that
the High Court has not at all considered and appreciated the additional H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A financial burden, which will be recurring, if the pensionary benefits are
extended to the employees of the WALMI.
4.7 It was submitted by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General of India that as held by this Court in a catena of decisions,
whether to grant a particular service benefit like pension etc. should be
B left to the employer as it will have a financial implication. Reliance was
placed on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Secretary, Finance
Department and others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service
Association and others, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153; State of Bihar
and others Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee,
Munger and others, (2019) 18 SCC 301; and Punjab State
C Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and another Vs.
Balbir Kumar Walia and others, (2021) 8 SCC 784.
4.8 Thus, making the above submissions and relying upon the above
decisions, it was prayed to allow the present appeal.
D 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents –
original writ petitioners while opposing the present appeals vehemently
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Courts,
after having been satisfied that there was no valid justification not to
extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI has rightly
directed the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of
E WALMI.
5.1 It was submitted that WALMI, right from its inception is being
paid funds from the Irrigation Department and WALMI receives Grant-
in-aid from the Government. It was submitted that the object and purpose
of WALMI is to impart training/education. Further that even the staff
F was allocated by the Irrigation Department of the State. It was further
submitted that even the posts, which are allotted to WALMI are included
in the 45,297 posts available and sanctioned for the Irrigation Department.
That the posts meant for WALMI are posts on establishment of Water
Resources Department of Government of Maharashtra and, thus,
G WALMI can be said to be a part of establishment of Water Resources
Department for all purposes and, therefore, the employees of the WALMI
cannot be treated differently and cannot be extended a differential
treatment in the matter of payment of pensionary benefits. It was urged
that the High Court has rightly observed that denial of pensionary benefits
to the employees of WALMI is clearly discriminatory and violative of
H Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. BHAGWAN 141
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
5.2 It was further submitted that the High Court has rightly observed A
that as the WALMI has sufficient funds to meet the financial burden of
pensionary benefits, therefore, there is no justification to deny the
pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI, more particularly, when
WALMI is a Grant-in-aid Institute and is fully funded by the State
Government. It was contended that apart from the fact that WALMI
B
receives 100% grant from the State Government, the Service Conditions
of its employees are regulated by the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules
and even the employees of WALMI have been from time to time extended
the benefits of wage, pay-scale revision, on par with the State Government
employees including the fixation of time bound pay scale and even the
employees are being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State C
Government and, therefore, there is no justification at all to extend the
differential treatment by the State Government to the employees of
WALMI by denying pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI.
5.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions
of this Court in the cases of Purshottam Lal and Ors. Vs. Union of D
India and Anr., (1973) 1 SCC 651 and Haryana State Minor
Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and Ors. Vs. G.S. Uppal and
Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 375, it was prayed to dismiss the present appeals.
6. We have thus heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties at length. E
7. The short question, which is posed for consideration of this
Court is “whether the employees of the WALMI are entitled to the
pensionary benefits on par with the State Government employees?”
8. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court
has directed the State to extend the retirement benefits to the employees F
of WALMI mainly on the following grounds:-
(i) that the primary functions of WALMI are educational, the
purpose of establishing the Institute is to impart training to
engineers and farmers of Maharashtra State and to provide
expert advice to the Water Resources Department, G
Government of Maharashtra relating irrigation management;
(ii) that the Institute receives 100% grant from the Government
since 1993;
(iii) that the posts created on the establishment are computed
amongst the sanctioned posts of the Water Resources H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A Department; the control in respect of the management and
the governance rest with high-ranking officers, i.e.,
Secretaries of the Government Department;
(iv) the Regulations applicable to the Government employees
relating to disciplinary matters as well as withdrawal of
B allowances like medical allowance, leave travel allowance,
regulations relating to grant of leave so also regulations
relating to disciplinary matters are uniform as in case of
Government employees;
(v) the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules are applicable to the
C Government employees;
(vi) that the employees of WALMI have been extended the
benefit of time bound promotional scale as in case of
Government employees;
(vii) that the employees of WALMI have also received the
D benefit of wage, pay scale revision made applicable to the
Government employees;
(viii) that for all practicable purposes, the employees of WALMI
are treated on par with the Government employees; the
salary and allowances payable to the employees of WALMI
E are being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State;
and
(ix) 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
F employees.
8.1On the aforesaid grounds, the High Court has ultimately
observed and held that there does not appear to be any reasonable basis
for the State to refuse to extend the benefit of pension to the retired
employees of WALMI.
G 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, we are of the opinion that none of the aforesaid grounds justify
extension of the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI.
9.1 WALMI is an independent autonomous body and a Society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The administration
H and management of the WALMI is through its Governing Council. That
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. BHAGWAN 143
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
WALMI has its own Rules, namely, WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980, A
governing the service conditions and the benefits available to the
employees of WALMI. The WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980 provide
for the benefits of travelling allowance, daily allowance, medical
reimbursement, house rent allowance etc. but however, do not provide
for pension, provident fund. Thereafter the Governing Council of WALMI
B
has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except Pension Rules.
Thus, from the above, it can be seen that 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. That in the G.R. dated 17.03.2006, it is stated C
that in WALMI 170 posts are created on temporary establishment.
However, it may be true that posts created in the WALMI are included
in the total sanctioned number of posts in the Water Resources
Department. However, in the said G.R. it is specifically observed that
WALMI is an autonomous institution of the Government and 214 posts
D
are sanctioned on fixed temporary establishment and 168 posts on
converted temporary establishment. It further provides that as the posts
are person-wise on the converted temporary establishment, the posts
shall be abolished automatically, if the person retires or resigns or becomes
vacant in any other way. It further provides that WALMI is an autonomous
institution, the staff of it cannot be transferred anywhere. E
9.2 It is required to be noted that as such the Government vide
G.R. dated 08.11.2005 specifically took a policy decision that the
employees of aided institutes, boards, corporations, who are not governed
by Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, shall not be made
applicable to such institutions. Even the proposal made by the then F
Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees
of WALMI came to be rejected by the State Government. Neither the
G.R. dated 08.11.2005 nor the decision of the State Government refusing
to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI are
challenged.
G
10. In view of the above factual scenario, the question posed is:
“whether the employees of WALMI, which is an independent
autonomous entity registered under the Societies Registration Act,
are entitled to the pensionary benefits on par with the State
Government employees?” H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A 10.1 While answering the aforesaid question, few decisions of
this Court on the inference of the Courts in the policy decision having
financial implications and whether the employees of the board/societies,
who are autonomous bodies can claim parity in the pay-scale and/or
other benefits which may be available to the Government employees,
are required to be considered.
B
10.2 In the case of T.M. Sampath and Ors. Vs. Secretary,
Ministry of Water Resources and Ors. (supra), the employees of
National Water Development Agency (NWDA), an autonomous body
under the aegis and control of Ministry of Water Resources claimed the
pensionary benefits on par with the Central Government employees.
C Refusing to allow such pensionary benefits to the employees of NWDA
on par with the Central Government employees, in paragraphs 16 and
17, it was observed and held as under:-
“16. On the issue of parity between the employees of NWDA
and Central Government employees, even if it is assumed that the
D 1982 Rules did not exist or were not applicable on the date of the
OM i.e. 1-5-1987, the relevant date of parity, the principle of parity
cannot be applicable to the employees of NWDA. NWDA cannot
be treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of
the Constitution merely on the basis that its funds are granted by
E the Central Government. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of
India [(2005) 4 SCC 649], it was held by this Court that the
autonomous bodies having some nexus with the Government by
itself would not bring them within the sweep of the expression
“State” and each case must be determined on its own merits.
Thus, the plea of the employees of NWDA to be treated on a par
F with their counterparts in the Central Government under sub-rule
(6)(iv) of Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, merely on the
basis of funding is not applicable.
17. Even if it is presumed that NWDA is “State” under Article 12
of the Constitution, the appellants have failed to prove that they
G are on a par with their counterparts, with whom they claim parity.
As held by this Court in UT, Chandigarh v. Krishan
Bhandari [(1996) 11 SCC 348], the claim to equality can be
claimed when there is discrimination by the State between two
persons who are similarly situated. The said discrimination cannot
H be invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be shown is
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. BHAGWAN 145
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
between acts of two different authorities functioning as State under A
Article 12. Thus, the employees of NWDA cannot be said to be
“Central Government employees” as stated in the OM for its
applicability.”
As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions,
the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of B
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, employees of such
autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the C
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. The State Government and the
Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par.
10.3 In the case of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers D
Federation Limited and Anr. Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia and Ors.,
(2021) 8 SCC 784, in paragraph 32, it is observed as under:-
“32. The Central or State Government is empowered to levy taxes
to meet out the expenses of the State. It is always a conscious
decision of the Government as to how much taxes have to be E
levied so as to not cause excessive burden on the citizens. But the
Boards and Corporations have to depend on either their own
resources or seek grant from the Central/ State Government, as
the case may be, for their expenditures. Therefore, the grant of
benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government F
employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by
an instrumentality of the State.”
10.4 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 G
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.
10.5 In the present case, WALMI being an autonomous body,
registered under the Societies Registration Act, the employees of WALMI
H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
C 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.
10.6 The observations made by the High court that as the salary
and allowances payable to the employees of WALMI are being paid out
D 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
E the State Government.
10.7 Now, 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
F 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, it is to be noted that 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
G 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. In any case, it is ultimately for the State Government
and the Society (WALMI) to take their own policy decision whether to
H
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. BHAGWAN 147
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
extend the pensionary benefits to its employees or not. The interference A
by the Judiciary in such a policy decision having financial implications
and/or having a cascading effect is not at all warranted and justified.
11. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated, the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court directing
the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI B
is unsustainable, both in law and on facts. Accordingly, the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is
held that the employees of WALMI, which is an independent autonomous
body registered under the Societies Act are not entitled to the pensionary
benefits. C
All these appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
D
Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pension"Sign in to search