TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets aside pension order, emphasizes discretionary Dearness Relief</h1> <h3>VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR. Versus AJIT KUMAR KAR & ORS.</h3> VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR. Versus AJIT KUMAR KAR & ORS. - 2009 AIR 34, 2008 (5) SCR 871, 2008 (11) SCC 591, 2008 (5) JT 286, 2008 (6) SCALE 29 Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to retrial benefits under the Central Government Pension Scheme.2. Calculation of pensionary benefits based on IDA or CDA pay scales.3. Applicability of Dearness Relief (DR) on pension.4. Validity of the High Court's judgment affirming the Single Judge's order.5. Clarification and interpretation of various Office Memoranda and Circulars issued by the Government and VSNL.6. Legal principles regarding vested rights and retrospective amendments.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Retrial Benefits under the Central Government Pension Scheme:The respondents, former employees of the Overseas Communication Service (OCS), were transferred to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) and opted for the Central Government Pension Scheme. The High Court directed the appellants to provide retrial benefits as per the Central Government Pension Scheme within four weeks.2. Calculation of Pensionary Benefits Based on IDA or CDA Pay Scales:The dispute centered on whether pensionary benefits should be calculated based on Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) or Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pay scales. The respondents argued for CDA benefits, while the appellants contended that IDA pay scales should apply since the employees were drawing IDA scales at the time of retirement.3. Applicability of Dearness Relief (DR) on Pension:The respondents sought DR on pension based on CDA scales. The appellants argued that DR should be based on IDA scales, as the respondents were drawing IDA pay scales at retirement. The Court clarified that DR on pension should align with the IDA pay scales, as per the Government Circular dated 24.12.1992.4. Validity of the High Court's Judgment Affirming the Single Judge's Order:The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in granting relief based on an incorrect interpretation of DR as a vested right. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.5. Clarification and Interpretation of Various Office Memoranda and Circulars:The Court examined several Office Memoranda and Circulars, including:- O.M. dated 13.01.1986: Provided options for pensionary benefits under Government or PSU rules.- O.M. dated 19.03.1986: Reiterated pensionary benefits as per the 13.01.1986 Circular.- O.M. dated 07.02.1990: Clarified that emoluments drawn under PSU rules would be treated as emoluments for pension calculation under Central Government Rules.- Circular dated 24.12.1992: Specified that IDA pay scales would apply for pension calculation, and DR would follow IDA patterns.6. Legal Principles Regarding Vested Rights and Retrospective Amendments:The Court held that the respondents did not have a vested right to receive DR based on CDA scales when their pension was calculated on IDA scales. The mistaken payment of DR on CDA scales did not confer any legal right. The Court distinguished this case from the precedent in Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, where retrospective amendments reducing pension were invalidated.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The respondents were entitled to pension calculated on IDA pay scales with corresponding IDA DR. Any benefits mistakenly given under CDA scales would not be recovered. The Court emphasized that DR is a matter of government discretion and not a vested right. There were no orders as to costs.
TaxTMI 