IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1028 of 2002 (S/B) Ashok Malviya ……Petitioner Versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Tel Bhawan, Dehradun through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director & another …Respondents Shri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Manoj Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. Dated: 30th December, 2010 Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V. K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) On 11th June, 1990, Self Contributory Post Retirement & Death in Service Benefit Scheme was introduced by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation for its officers. In terms of the scheme, existing employees of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation could opt for the same. Petitioner was then an existing employee of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. He opted for the scheme. In terms of the scheme, petitioner became entitled to pension to be calculated on the basis of last salary drawn by him. On 24th March, 1992, a change was brought in the scheme. In terms thereof if an employee of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, covered by the scheme, gives an option in writing that in the event of pay revision from a retrospective date, he will contribute difference between the contribution that he has made and the contribution he would be required to make based on his revised salary along with 12 % compound interest, the last drawn revised salary will be taken into consideration for calculation of pension. It was made clear that such option can be exercised only once before the date of final settlement of annuity. Subsequent thereto, petitioner applied for voluntary retirement. 2. When the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was under consideration, petitioner exercised option in terms of the change effected on 24th March, 1992 to the scheme to the extent as indicated above. On the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, petitioner retired on 15th July, 1993. Petitioner’s pension was settled on the basis of last pay he actually drew. Thereafter, the pay of the petitioner was revised w.e.f. 1st January, 1992. Petitioner, accordingly, sought fixation of his pension on the basis of his revised pay of which he became entitled as his last pay, in terms of the option exercised by him under the scheme altered on 24th March, 1992. That was not given to the petitioner. Ultimately, petitioner was told that the actual date of retirement of the petitioner was 1st April, 1995 and before 1st April, 1995, on 23rd February, 1995, the alteration to the scheme effected on 24th March, 1992 to the extent as indicated above and where under the petitioner was seeking to take advantage, was altered by providing that as regards request for deferment of claim till revision of pay due w.e.f. 1st January, 1992, it has been decided that pension would be calculated on the actual last salary drawn by the member and no cognizance shall be given to change in salary either on account of pay revision or promotion from retrospective date for which orders are issued after superannuation/ occurrence of event. 3. In the present writ petition, it is the contention of the petitioner that question of taking into account the actual date of superannuation of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, did not arise. The fact remains that much before 23rd February, 1995, petitioner retired. It was contended that the alteration, thus, effected on 23rd February, 1995 was and is not applicable to the petitioner. No doubt there is some force in the said contention, inasmuch as, on acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement by the petitioner, w.e.f. 15th July, 1993 the relationship of employer and employee in between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and the petitioner came to an end. In so far as petitioner is concerned, the scheme as stood as on 15th July, 1993, was applicable to the petitioner and not the alteration effected thereto on 23rd February, 1995. However, the fact remains that in order to obtain the benefit of the alteration effected to the scheme on 24th March, 1992, as referred to above, in addition to exercise of option, petitioner was required to contribute the difference between the contribution that he had made and the contribution that he was required to make based on his revised salary along with 12 % compound interest. Petitioner has not made the said contribution, nor did he offer to deposit the same no sooner it came to his knowledge that the salary payable to the petitioner has been revised w.e.f. 1st January, 1992. That being the situation, it is not open to the petitioner to ask for the revised pension. We, accordingly close the matter. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.12.2010 30.12.2010 ML