TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY J. - (1.) Challenge in these writ petitions is against a judgment delivered by the learned Tribunal on 21st June, 2013. By the said judgment, four original applications being OA 722 of 2012, OA 1350 of 2012, OA 1012 of 2012 and OA 1433 of 2012 were disposed of. The said original applications were preferred before the learned Tribunal in the backdrop of the facts that on the basis of an agreement dated 12th December, 1966 executed by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as FCI) and the State Government a good number of employees, including the respondents herein, were sent to work in FCI on deputation. Subsequently, they were absorbed in FCI and were given the pensionary benefits including the terminal benefits in terms of Rule 189A of the West Bengal Services (Death -Cum -Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the DCRB Rules). In terms of the said Rules an absorbee received the terminal benefits equivalent to commuted value of 2/3rd of the pro -rata pension (calculated on the basis of length of service of the concerned employee) as one time benefit and normal commuted value of the remaining 1/3rd of the said pro -rata pension, restorable after 15 years as in the case of normal pensioners. The respondents were treated as normal pensioners during the period from the date of tendering resignation till the date of medical examination and were also paid the admissible amount of pension during the said period. In the midst thereof, the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1986 came into force with effect from 1st January, 1986 and the respondents were given the benefits of revised pension till the date of medical examination but after commutation of the pension from the date of medical examination, the State respondents granted the benefits on the basis of unrevised pension. Subsequent thereto, by a government order No.2430 -F(Pen) dated 12th July, 2001 the government decided that the absorbees who received lump sum amount in lieu of pension under Rule 189A of DCRB Rules shall be entitled to the restoration of 1/3rd commuted portion of pension after 15 years from the date of commutation and the said order was given effect from 1st April, 2001. By a further government order No.2431 -F(Pen) dated 12th July, 2001 the government further directed that the restored amount of 1/3rd commuted portion of pension shall be consolidated with effect from 1st April, 2001 and that the restored amount of pension will be notionally consolidated by merger of the restored amount of the 1/3rd commuted amount of pension plus notional relief. Thereafter by a government order No.01 -F(Pen) dated 4th January, 2010 the amount of pro -rata pension already restored was directed to be further consolidated with effect from 1st January, 2010 by adding together the existing restored portion of pro -rata pension, dearness pension at the rate of 50% of existing pension and dearness relief at the rate of 24% of the pension plus dearness pension at the rate of 50% of the pension but the government declined to grant dearness relief upon revised pension as admissible to a normal pensioner. Aggrieved by such dissimilar treatment, the respondents made repeated representations but in vain and as such the respondents approached the Tribunal by preferring the original applications praying for the following reliefs : - (a) An order be issued directing the respondents and each of them to grant and pay : (i) The amount of revised pension which was neither commuted nor surrendered permanently from the date of medical examination and continue to pay the same. (ii) The dearness relief on the basis of pension as they stood on the date of medical examination. (b) To grant revised pension to the applicants after restoration of the commuted amount of pension together with the continued pension as indicated at sub para (ii) above at per with the normal pensioner. (c) To grant the benefits of family pension to the applicants in modification of the provision contained in Rule 189A of the West Bengal Death Cum Retirement benefits Rule, 1971. (d) Applicants may be directed to transmit all records pertaining to this case for better appreciation of the matter by this Hon'ble Tribunal. (e) Any other order and/or orders and/or orders or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper for administration of justice and equity. (f) Leave be granted to file the application collectively. (g) Costs. Mr. Majumder learned Assistant Additional Government Pleader submits that the respondents being aware of the terms and conditions guiding absorption in FCI, exercised option and availed the consequential benefits. In appreciation of the fact that the pension is disbursed as a social security measure, commuted value of pension was subsequently restored in favour of the respondents and upon such restoration, the government consolidated the sum by adding the benefits of dearness relief. Having accepted the said benefits the respondents cannot now pray for the extension of the benefits of revision of basic pension in terms of the ROPA Rules.
(2.) He further submits that the rigors of Rule 189A of the DCRB Rules have not been properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal and it has proceeded being oblivious of the fact that the respondents on their own volition sought for absorption in FCI being aware of the terms and conditions and the benefits which would be available to them upon such absorption. As per Rule 189A, once a government servant exercises option under Clause IV, the benefit which the said employee would be entitled to has been specified under Clause X and that there is no provision towards grant of any further benefit as prayed for the respondents. Furthermore Clause VII of Rule189A itself stipulates that after permanent absorption a Government servant shall not be entitled to the benefit of any further liberalization of pension rules decided upon by the Government.
(3.) He further argues that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in directing extension of benefits as available to the Central Government employees to the respondents being oblivious of the fact that under the Constitutional scheme of division of powers between the Central Government and the State Governments, the State Governments are competent to make rules in case of State Government employees and State Government pensioners and that there is no obligation on the part of the State Government to adopt all the rules applicable to Central Government employees and Central Government pensioners.;