IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.26812 to 26817 of 2010 and W.P.No.65 of 2011 1.K.Suseela ...Petitioner in W.P.No.26812 of 2010 2.S.Stella ...Petitioner in W.P.No.26813 of 2010 3.A.Kasiyammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.26814 of 2010 4.E.Mariammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.26815 of 2010 5.R.Lakshmi Kantha ... Petitioner in W.P.No.26816 of 2010 6.N.Suseela ... Petitioner in W.P.No.26817 of 2010 7.B.Chandra ... Petitioner in W.P.No.65 of 2011 Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002. 2.The Industrial Relations Manager, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents in all Petitions Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for Writ of certiorarified mandamus, Calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in his Lr.No.CMWSSB/P&A/LRS/ 17008/2010-1,4,2,7,9,5 and 6 respectively dt.24.8.2010 and quash the same as highly illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay family pension and the arrears thereof to the petitioner on par with other employees of the Board. For Petitioners : Mr.Antoni For Respondents : Mr.B.Santhakumar,SC for CMWSS C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioners in all these writ petitions are wives of the employees of the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short Board). After serving in the Lbour Category in the Board, they had expired. The dates of their expiry is set out in the Annexure to the letter forwarded by the Metro SC/ST Employees https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Welfare Association and it ranges from the year 1978 to 1986. 2. The Association to which the petitioners' husband were members had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.10957 of 2010, seeking for a direction to pay pension on account of the death of the petitioners husband, who were employees of the Board. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by a final order dated 07.06.2010, wherein this Court held that in case of pension, it requires individual details of employment and an omnibus prayer by a Trade Union is not maintainable. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners had sent representation (a copy of which is enclosed in the typed set of papers) informing the respondent Board that their husband were employees of the Board. After the death of their husband, they were also appointed on compassionate ground. Since their husband were not paid pension, they may be directed to pay pension as per the orders of the Board. 4. Pursuant to the representation made by the petitioners, the Board informed each of the petitioner vide a similar order dated 24.08.2010 that the petitioners' husband belonged to the Labour Category. The workers in the Labour Category were brought under the Provincial service only from 01.05.1986 vide G.O.Ms.No.546 MA & W.S. Department, dated 30.04.1986 and the pensionary eligibility for such employees came only from 01.05.1986. Inasmuch as the husband of the petitioners have expired before the cut off date, the question of their entitlement to get pension may not arise. A copy of the said Government Order is enclosed in the typed set of papers at page 1. 5. In the Government Order, it was found that the State Government agreed with the proposals sent by the Managing Director to bring the Labour Category workers into regular establishment so that they can enjoy the benefits of Leave, Medical reimbursement, Pension, Family Pension, Special Provident Fund, General Provident Fund and Group Insurance. Agreed with the recommendation made by the first respondent, the Government issued the said GO on par with the employees who were working in Chennai Corporation. It was also indicated that the Board will have to get necessary exemption from Employees Provident Fund Scheme and Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme. Upon such exemption, the pension Scheme can be implemented as resolved by the Board in its Resolution No.125/85 dated 15.04.1985. Therefore, only with reference to the conversion of the Labour Category into regular establishment, the Pension Scheme was introduced. In the case of the petitioners' husband, they had expired long before the said Government Order. Therefore, the question of their having the benefit of the Government Order may not arise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Pension Regulations, more particularly Regulation No.10, wherein, it is stated that non-provincilaised period of service rendered under workcharged establishment of P.W.D personnel whose services were transferred to the Board shall qualify for pension. 7. In the present case, the petitioners' husband were not appointed as workcharged employees under the P.W.D and whose services were sent on deputation to the Board. Even under Regulation 10(b), it is clearly stated that such of those employees who come into regular establishment with effect from 01.05.1986 will have their services in the pre-regular establishment service under the Labour Category will be acknowledged. 8. It is not clear as to how the said Regulation will apply to the case of the petitioners husband. When Pensionary Scheme is made by the Government, unless the petitioners are able to show that they come within the same class of pensioners, the question of any discrimination will not arise. In the present case, the petitioners' husband were covered by EPF and Family Pension Scheme made thereunder as well as covered by Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme. At no point of time, they were considered as pensioners of regular establishment and only because of G.O.Ms.No.546 dated 30.04.1986, the pensionary entitlement came to be applied. 9. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court vide its judgment in D.S.Nakara and others v. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305. The Supreme Court held that only when there is invidious discrimination made within the same class of pensioners, the question of infraction of Article 14 will arise and not otherwise. 9. In the present case, the petitioners husband do not come under the category of regular establishment as they had expired before the introduction of the Pension Scheme. Therefore, the claim made in these writ petitions is misconceived and bereft of legal reasons. Accordingly, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002. 2.The Industrial Relations Manager, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002. 1 cc To M/s.Achari & Antoni, Advocate, SR.22651 1 cc To Mr.B.Santhakumar, Advocate, SR.23147 W.P.Nos.26812 to 26817 of 2010 and W.P.No.65 of 2011 ts(co) pmk.26.4.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/