- (1.) This order will dispose of the above noted four civil writ petitions, common question of law being involved therein. Facts are taken from C.W.P.-18825-2007 titled K.K. Sharma and others v. Haryana Financial Corporation and others. The decision of Haryana Financial Corporation (for short the Corporation) vide Annexure P. 12, dated 25.11.2004, scrapping the pension scheme floated by the Corporation has been challenged by the petitioners already drawing pension being the retired employees of the above said Corporation. The decision arrived at by the Board of Directors of respondent Corporation vide Annexure P. 12 reads as follows:- The Board considered the proposal and after detailed discussions took the following decisions:- (a) Considering the advice of the Senior Legal Adviser as also the relevant provisions in this regard the pension scheme as floated by the Corporation becomes incompetent and therefore the same be scrapped for the time being. (b) The requisite approval of State Government, for want of which the scheme remains incompetent should be attempted to be obtained at the earliest and after getting that approval/decision of the Govt., process to adopt the pension scheme should be started de novo. (c) As a consequence from all such employees who have, though opted for the said incompetent pension scheme, yet who have not retired from the service of the Corporation, the adoption of the pension scheme be withdrawn immediately. As a consequence, they shall fall back into the contributory provident fund scheme and for the continuance of the same benefit of matching contribution as per Provident Fund Regulations towards their provident fund as employer share is to be made along with interest from respective due dates out of the Pension Fund. (d) Such of the employees who are already availing the benefit of pension scheme after retirement or due to any other reason, the pension scheme should provisionally be continued in their case. However, even they should be given an option to shift to the contributory provident fund scheme. In such cases where this option is exercised, the amount should be appropriately reworked for passing on the balance benefit if any. However, in such cases, where as a consequences of the shifting, the retired employee has as a balance to make some payment to the Corporation, the same shall be waived. (e) The Board further observed that with the scrapping of the Pension Scheme all the existing employees shall be appropriately covered under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme of the Corporation and resolved that provident fund accumulation of all the employees and employer's share along with interest be transferred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. (f) The Board further authorised the Managing Director to take all action required to give effect to this decision.
(2.) Petitioners also challenge letters Annexure P. 13 dated 17.12.2004, Annexure P. 15 dated 5.12.2007, Annexure P. 18 dated 10.2.2009 and Annexure P. 20 dated 31.3.2009. Vide order dated 17.12.2004 Annexure P. 13, petitioner No. 1 (has been) required to give his option whether he would prefer to continue with the pension scheme or contributory scheme of the Corporation within 45 days. Vide Annexure P. 15, petitioner No. 1 was communicated the decision of the scrapping of the pension scheme. Annexure P. 18 is the decision of the Government on consideration of the proposal of the Corporation suggesting that it was incumbent upon the Corporation to seek prior approval of the State Government in terms of Section 48 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short "the Act") before implementing the decision and giving it the shape of a regulation. The Board of Directors had implemented the decision without taking prior approval of the State Government, which was in violation of the provisions contained in Section 48 of the Act, as such, the State Government was not in a position to support the proposal of the Corporation to grant the requisite approval of the State. Vide order Annexure P. 20, the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 316th meeting held on 31.3.2009 had taken a decision for discontinuation of the pension scheme which was kept in abeyance in the year 2007.
(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as pleaded in the petition, are that respondent No. 1 is the Corporation in terms of the Act, and is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are former employees of the said Corporation, having retired from service on different dates as indicated in Annexure P. 1. Prior to the year 1992, the respondent-Corporation did not have any pension scheme and the employees were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. All the petitioners were members of said Scheme. Vide order dated 26.6.1992, Annexure P. 2, the State of Haryana took a decision that Boards and Corporations wholly owned by the State Government may introduce a pension scheme as per the Pension Rules of the Haryana Government and the instructions issued from time to time in lieu of, Contributory Provident Fund Scheme w.e.f., 1.6.1992. As per Annexure P. 2, the Financial Commissioner, Finance and Secretary to the Government, Haryana, Finance Department, had communicated to the Managing Directors of all the Boards/Corporations that pursuant to the approach of the Boards and Corporations of State government for introduction of Pension Scheme in lieu of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme in their organizations, it had been decided by the State Government that the Boards and Corporations in Haryana may introduce Pension Scheme as per Pension Rules of Haryana Government and instructions issued from time to time in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme w.e.f. 1.6.1992. It was also communicated through the said letter that Boards and Corporations would allow the existing employees to exercise an option within three months whether they would like to receive pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and no employee would be allowed to change his option. In case of employees opting for pension, the employer share along with interest thereon in the Contributory Provident Fund accumulations shall stand transferred to the concerned Board/Corporations to be constituted into Pension Fund exclusively for payment of pensionary benefits. The decision of the Government that said fund shall be invested in such securities/manner as may be directed by the Government in the Finance Department, was also communicated. It was also decided that if any advance, refundable or nonrefundable, had been taken by such employees out of employer's contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund, the same shall be paid back by them to the Board/Corporation along with interest in lump sum or in such installments as may be determined by the Board/Corporation. The employees share with interest thereon in the Contributory Provident Fund shall be converted into the General Provident Fund, to be created, maintained and administered by the respective Boards/Corporations subject to such government instructions as were issued from time to time. The entire financial liability on account of introduction of Pension Scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund was required to be met and paid by the respective Boards/Corporations from their own funds. All the Boards and Corporations were thereafter advised to obtain necessary approval from the Board of Directors/Administrators etc. and to complete other necessary requirements/formalities of law/rules for proper implementation of the scheme. Pursuant to the decision dated 26.6.1992, Annexure P. 2, the respondent-Corporation constituted a six member Pension Committee to go into the details about the adoption of pension scheme. The said Committee considered the matter and recommended the minutes dated 28.10.1992, Annexure P. 3. The said Committee arrived at a conclusion that the Corporation will not be a loser in any way by adoption of the Pension Scheme since the funds will be scattered in monthly payments to the retired employees.;