1. Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel appears for the petitioners.
Mr. S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services appears for respondent No.3.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioners are the employees of the 2nd respondent Organization from their entry into service and consequently direct the respondent to extend all the benefits on par with the other employees of the Board including EL Credit, Pension and Pensionary Benefits as the employees of the Board together with interest from the date of their retirement by nullifying the proceedings under letter No.15682/Tex.1/2010, dated 02.07.2011, of the First respondent and pass such other relief or reliefs…”
3. Brief facts:
A.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board (for short ‘the Board’) i.e., respondent No.2, which was constituted under A.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Act, 1958, identifies the prospective entrepreneurs, trains them though Khadi Gramodyog Mahavidyala (set up in terms of G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 07.03.1981), extends financial support by way of loan and undertakes to market the products through its Marketing Wing. The petitioners were appointed in the Marketing Wing between 30.07.1986 to 19.11.1987 and their probation was declared on completion of one year and having served in the said organization, petitioners retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
3.1 The petitioners along with other employees earlier approached the Industrial Tribunal for not extending pay scales equal to the scales of employees of the Board. The Tribunal, vide award dated 19.03.1993, directed the Board to grant the pay scales, DA, HRA etc., on par with other employees of the Board. The employees of Mahavidyala i.e., the Training Wing of the Board filed a writ petition namely W.P.No.2437 of 1999 seeking pension. The High Court vide orders, dated 29.08.2005, inter alia held the employees of Mahavidyala entitled to pension and allowed the writ petition. The order of learned Single Judge was affirmed in W.A.No.372 of 2006. In compliance of said orders, pension was paid to the employees of Training Wing of the Board.
3.2 The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not being paid pensionary benefits on par with the employees of the Board. It is averred that a scheme was introduced in the year 2006 absorbing the services of petitioners w.e.f. nil.10.2006. It is further averred that respondents took a stand that employees absorbed after 01.09.2004 are not entitled for pension. The Government vide letter, dated 02.07.2011, rejected the request of petitioners stating that Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules, 1980’) are not applicable to the appointments made on or after 01.09.2004 in all the Public Section Undertakings. It was also stated that such of those employees appointed after 01.09.2004 were entitled for Contributory Pension Scheme only. Aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.
4. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that employees of Marketing Wing constitute employees of the Board and the petitioners were appointed and continued to be in service after their probation till they were absorbed in the year 2006. It is further submitted that having been appointed by the Board, the petitioners had their pay scales fixed on par with the pay scales of employees of the Board. It is also submitted that all the employees of the Board were under Contributory Provident Fund scheme and later pension scheme was extended to the employees of the Board. It is also submitted that when the employees of Mahavidyala, a Training Wing of Board were denied pension, the same was challenged in the High Court and pursuant to the orders of the High Court, pension and other benefits were granted.
4.1 It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Board being an instrumentality of State cannot apply a different yardstick to the employees of Marketing Wing. It is further submitted that petitioners, having been appointed by the Board and drawing the pay scales of Board as regular employees from June, 1993 onwards, cannot be denied pensionary benefits. It is contended that by absorbing the petitioners in the year 2006, they cannot be denied pension on the ground that employees absorbed after 01.09.2004 are not entitled for pension. It is further contended that petitioners’ request for pensionary benefits was turned down vide letter No.15682/Tex.1/2010, dated 02.07.2011, by the respondents.
4.2 It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that by rejecting the request of the petitioners, employees/petitioners who are similarly placed or otherwise equals cannot be made unequals and the same amounts to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that pension and pensionary benefits are not a bounty, but are legitimate rights of the petitioners.
5. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondent No.3 that vide G.O.Rt.No.104, Industries and Commerce (Tex) Department, dated 07.02.2005, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board was permitted to absorb employees of KnC on the rolls of the Board against existing vacancies. It is further submitted that vide proceedings No.Estt/G1/KnC/ Absorption/2006-1, dated 18.10.2006, the employees of KnC were absorbed. It is also submitted that the request of the employees were rejected vide letter, dated 02.07.2011, by the Government on the ground that the Rules, 1980 shall not apply to appointments made on or after 01.09.2004 in all Public Sector Undertakings.
5.1 It is submitted by learned Government Pleader for Services that the petitioners/employees (17 in number) were absorbed in existing vacancies of Attendar, LDC/Junior Inspector based on qualifications and merits. It is submitted that the appointments were subject to following conditions:
“1. He shall continue under EPF Scheme.
2. His pay on the date of absorption shall be protected in the pay scale to the post which he is absorbed.
3. On absorption, he shall be governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Khadi & Village Industries Board Employees (Recruitment and service conditions) Regulations, 1996 and its subsequent amendments.
4. Deficits if any noticed against him during his services in KnC, such amounts shall be recovered without any notice.
5. His seniority shall be shown as Junior in the said cadre.
Accordingly Employees Provident fund monthly contributions deducted from their salaries along with matching contribution of the Board is being remitted to the Employees Provident Commissioner, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.”
5.2 It is submitted by learned Government Pleader for Services that in view of the appointment of petitioners/employees subject to the conditions stated supra, pension, EL credit and pensionary benefits cannot not be extended to the petitioners.
6. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 and the averments made in the affidavit reflect the same stand taken by the other official respondents on whose behalf the learned Government Pleader made submissions. It is observed from the counter affidavit of respondent No.4 that all the petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on various dates before 2020 except petitioner No.4 who was terminated by the Board in the combined State.
7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record. Considered the rival submissions. It is an admitted fact that petitioners were employees of Marketing Wing of KnC and they were drawing pay scales on par with other employees of the Board. It is not in dispute that petitioners were absorbed in the Board vide proceedings No.Estt/G1/KnC/ Absorption/ 2006-1, dated 18.10.2006, pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.104, Industries and Commerce (Tex) Department, dated 07.02.2005. It is also not in dispute that petitioners were in service from 1993 and have retired on attaining the age of superannuation, but have not been granted pension, EL credit and pensionary benefits.
8. It is trite law that in matters of employment/service under the State, all employees must be treated alike both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities and obligations imposed. The Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. Munshi Ram 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1493 held as follows:
“It cannot be disputed that employees working in different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer – Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees working under the same employer – Railway Board working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any discrimination inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/ Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees – Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer.”
It is further held by the Apex Court in the case of Munshi Ram (supra) as follows:
“Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants - UOI/Railways that there shall be huge financial burden on the Railways is concerned, it is required to be noted that the issue is with respect to pensionary benefits. Once it is found that the respondents – Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are also entitled to similar benefits which are given to the similarly situated Commission Vendors/bearers working in different zones/divisions and since they are already being paid the pensionary benefits by counting the benefit of 50% of their services rendered prior to their regularization, there is no reason to deny the similar benefits to the respondents – Commission 35 Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway being similarly situated.”
9. In the present case, it is not disputed that petitioners were working under the same employer i.e., Board, in Marketing Wing. There cannot be discrimination among the employees of the same organization working in different wings/departments and denying similar benefits would amount to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is an admitted fact that they have been discharging duties for more than two decades in various positions and were granted pay scales on par with employees of other wings of the Board and denial of pension, EL credit and pensionary benefits would amount to discrimination. It is trite law that State and its instrumentalities are obliged to act as a model employer and cannot be seen to deprive the petitioners of the benefits contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners are held entitled for pension, EL credit and pensionary benefits.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the length of service rendered by the petitioners be taken into account for grant of pension, EL credit and pensionary benefits on par with other employees working in different wings of the Board. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of pension, EL credit as well as other benefits to the petitioners at par with other employees working in different wings of the Board within a period of four (04) months from today.
11. According, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
