/j-.F^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCS6ARH AT BILASPUR CORAM; Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri Ditip Raosaheb Oeshinukh, J. 90 PETETEONERS RESPONDENTS W.P.N0.2S12/2003 1. Coal India Retired Officers' Association Through: Its President, Baldeo Singh, HIG/54. Maharana Pratiip N090?. KO^BA (C.G.) 2. Baldeo Singh s/o Late S.^. Singh, HIG/54, Moharana Pratop Nagar, KOftBA (C.6.) Versus 1. Union of Ihdu, Through: The Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhavan, New belhi. 2. Coal India Limited, Through: Its Chairman-cum-Managing Direcfror, 10, N.S.Road, Kolkala. 3. South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Through: Its Chairman-cum-Manfliging birector, Seqaat Road, Bilaspur (C.©.) 4. TTie Commissiomir, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Ohanbad (Jliarkhond) PETETCONER RESPONDENTS W.P.No.4103/2003 S.S.Rao, S/o tate S.R.Murthy, C/o Shri P.K.Roy, Oipu Para, Near htalanda School, Bilaspur-495 004 Versus 1. Union of India. Through: Secretary, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi. 2. South Bastem Coalfields Lrmited, Through: Its Chairman-cum-Mana9ing Director, Seepat ftoad, Bilaspur-495 001 3. Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Shri &ary Mukhopadhyay, Counsel for Ihe petit'ioners. Shri S.K.Beriwal, Stond^ Counsel for the Union of India/re^ondents No. 1. & 4 (W.P.No.Z512/2003) <& for respondent No.3 (W.P.No.4103/2003) Shri P.S.Ko^iy, leamed Counsel for the re^aondents No.2 & 3 (W.P.No.Z51Z/Z003) <& for respondent No.Z (WP.No.4103/2003) —2.<- 91 ORAL ORDER (Passedon 19.4.2006) The following oral order of 1+ie Court was poussed by S.R. Nayak, C.J. 1. Since the question of taw that airiass for decision-making in both the^ writ petitions is identical. these writ petitions were clubbed, heard together and they are being di^osed of by this common jud9ment ond order. 2. In these writ petitions. the constitutional validity of the proviso to Paragroph-5 of the Coal Mines Pension Scheme. 1998 (for short, "the Scheme") is o^sailed. Tlie scheme is framed by the Cenlral fiovernment in exercise of the powers conferred by Section-SE of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Misceltaneous Provisions Act 1948 (46 of 1948) (for shorl-, "the Act"), in supersession of the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971. 3. Paragro^h-5 of this Scheme reads as fotlows: "(5)An empbyee. who was a member of the Central Coatfields Limited Staff Provident Fund, OarbhcBiga House, Ranchi, hereinafter referred to as CCL5PF, or the Coal Mines Au-Hiority Limited Staff Provident Fund constituted under the Coal Mines Nationalization Provident Fund Kules, 1976, hereinafter referred as C^ALSPF retired or supercmnuated on or after first doy of Apn'1,1994 or has become the member of Coal Mines Provident Fund, ^iall be deemed to have become -(fie member of this scheme and eligible to draw pension from the date, following -tiie date of superannuation or retirement in respect of members superannuated or retired on or before 7fh October, 2002. dnd other members as per the provisions of -riiis Scheme from 08th October, ZOOZ: Provided the employee pr the ex-employee or the family (in -tiie event of dealh of an ex-employee) deposit 'into the pension fund the arrears, equivalent to the omounts specified in Cl. (b). (C), (d). and (e) and (f), of Paragraph 3. along wt'th interest tid the date of deposit from the first day of March, 1971 or the date of joining seryi<M;, whichever is (ater, till 07t^ October, 2002 or the date of superonnudtion or retirement, as 1+ie case may be, by way of authorizing transfer of sudi amounts from his/her provident fund accumulations, in reqaect of members who have not withdrawn their Provident Fund -3 -•3- accuniuhtions, dnd for other member's cases, by way of Demand Oraft. Note: - For the purpose of this paragroph- (i) A deemed member under this paragraph shall have the option not to join this ^heme. For this, he shatt inform the Conimissioner in writlng wrthin one year from the date of publicatjon of this notification- The option once exercised shall be final, (ii)The amounts q^ecified in Cl. (b) of paragrq?h-3 shall ccirry on interest at the rates admissibte to Coal Mines Provident Fund members, for Cls, (c) and (d) of parc^raph-3 at the rate of 12% per annum and Ihe amounts under Ct«(e) of parcugraph-3, at such rate, fixed by the Central <&ovt. from time to time credited interest in its contributions to the Coal Mines Family Pwision Scheme, 1971 till 31-03-1998, and at the rate of 8.5% with effectfrom 01-04-1998. (iii)The pensionable service diall be counted in terms of paragraph-2 (0) deeming tfiat they were the members of ceased Coal Mines Faniily Pension Schme/ 1971 or Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, as the case may be, from 01-03-1971 or from the date of joining into CMALSPF or CCLSPF whichever is tater till 07th October. 2002 or date of supenannuation or retirement, as tiie case mc(y be. (iv)In case of ony dispute regarding pensionable service, the decision of the Commissioner ^iall be final. 4. Shri 6ary Mukhopddhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the conditions imposed under the prov'iso to paragrcph-5 of the Scheme are quite onerous, arbitrory, unreasonable and violative of Article-14 as well as Article-21 of the Constitution. Elaborating the above contention, learned counsel would point out that in terms of the proviso, the petitioners who wish to opt for the pension under the Scheme are required not only to pay their contributions but also the burden imposed on the 6overnm®itof India and the employer, and therefore, the proviso should te condemned as arbitrary ond violative of Article-14 postubtes. Leamed counsel would altematively contend that even assumin9 that the eonditions prescribed sn the proviso for an employee to opt for the pension under the Scheme could be sustained on the touchstone of Article-14 of the 92 -u- A&a.iSHy^r —:-JN_: -4- Constitution of India, even Ihen, the morrey required to be deposited under the proviso by cn empbyee could be set off ayiinst the money payabte to such employee if he opts for the pension under the Scheme< (5) We have heard leamed counsel for the respondents also and they supported the inipugned provision. (6) Having heard the laimed counsel for the parties, 1+ie onfy question 1+iat arises for decision-makin9 is whetiier the petitioner has made out cny ground to declare that the iinpugned provision of the proviso to paragroiph-5 of the Scheme is unconstitutional and invatid, (7) The Jmpugned provision a piece of delegated legisbtion made by Central Sovernment in exerci^ of the power conferred upon it under the Act. It is well settled that the constitutional validity of a delegated legislation could be questioned successfully only on certain grounds such as (i) that the Parent Act is (///n? (we^the Constitution; (ii) -tiiat the delegated legislation is ulira vires the Constitution; (iii) that the delegated l^islation is ultra viresPoxw\1 Act in the sense that it is in excess of the power conferred by the Parent Act or that it is in conftict with the Parent Act or that it js in conflict with the prescribed proc^dure of the Parent Act or that it is unreasomible, arbitrary and discriminatory or that it is mala fide w that it encroaches upon the rights of the petitioners derived from the common law in the absence of an express authority in the Parent Act or that it conflicts with the terms of some other statute, In this case, none of those 9rounds are urged to assail the constitutional valjdity of the impu9ned delegated legislation except the ground that the conditions imposed under the proviso as conditions precedent for the petitioners to opt for the pension under the Scheme are unreasonable, arbitrary and copricious, In the course of the arguments, we pointedly asked the learned counsel for tlie petitioner whether, if the petitioners were to comply with the conditions imposed on them in terms of the proviso to paragroph-5, the 6ovt. of -6- 93 's- 94 India would have made any profit or unlawful gain, leamed counsej would quite fdrly tell us that if 1+ie petitioners are enrolled under the Scheme as membBrs, they would receive pecuniary benefit of Rs,2 lakhs and odd ^ereas the petitioner has to poy only a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- in order to comply w'r^\ the prescriptions contained in the proviso to paragroph-5. Therefore, it cannot be scad that -rtie conditions incorporated in 1+ie proviso are unreasonable or arbitrary, In a matter like this. the donee of a statutory of power sliould be given necessary latitude to frame terms and conditions of the Pension Scheme, and the Court cannot dictate terms of the Schemes and that that that is not its province. TTie only thing to be seen by the Court- is whether the condition that the employee should deposit into the pension fund the arrears, equivalent to the amounts ^ecified in cloiuses (b). (c), (d), (e) and (f) of paragroph 3 of the Scheme along with interest could be condemned as irrational and arbitrary. (8) It is true that Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law or equal protection of the laws to every person, and, therefore, unreasonabteness of administrative rule- making can also be challenged on the ground that it violatBS Article 14 of Ifie Constitution of India. as held by the Supreme Court and High Courts in number of cases, for example, in Air India v. Nergesh ^eerza1, W«st Bengat Electricity Board v. 0®shBandhu Gosh2. Stat®of Maharashtra v. ftcy Kumw3, Indrwadan v. Stot®of G^wath4. (^eenakshi v. Univwsity of bethi5 and ©i^arath Universiry v. Ra^tv Bhatt6. Th®Supreme Court havin9 pressed into service Article 14 postulates annulled the delegated legistations impu9ned before it. But, it needs to be noticed that the Court cannot strike down a deleyited legislation on the ground of unreasonabteness 1. (1981) 4 SCC 335 = AJA. 1981 SC 1829 2. AItt 1985 SC 722 = (19%) 3 SCC 116 3. AIR 1982 SC 785 = (1982) 3 SCC 313 4.1986 Supp. SCC 254 5. (1989)35cc 709 6. (1996)45cc 60. —-—-_ ~t- ^^^:S'^^^^^::^^^S:^s -.6- merely becouse. the Court thinks that it goes farther thcm is r»cessaryor that it does not contain provisions which. in the opinion of the Court. would have been fair. Tlie Courts connot ajbstitute their wisdom with the wisdom of rule-making authorities, Unless a rule \s manifestly unjust, copricious, inequitable or partial in operation, it ccinnot be invalidated on the ground of unrecisonableness or arbitrariness. A responsible administrative authority, in this case, no other than the Central fiovemment entrusted wjth the power of rule- making must ordinarily be presumed to know what is rwcessary, reasonable, just and fair- The validity of rules has been judged by generalities of the coses they cover and not by the stray incidences of errors and irre9ularities discovered or the personal hard^iip that may ensue by q?plication of rules as highlighted before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In other words, the test of reasondbleness should be appjied in the context of realities of life, as observed by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Stat®Board of Secondory and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth7. (9) In G.B.Mahcyan vs. Jalgaon Municipal Corporation8, the Supreme Court held that 1+ie test of reasombleness os applied to administrative actions is different from the test as applied in the law of torts or while reviewing administrative action by woy of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indkx. (10) In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground whatsoever to declare the impugned delegated legtslation as invalid on <xny permissible ground. (11) The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordin9ly dismissed. No costs- 95 Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 7. AIR 1984 SC 1543 = (1984) 4 SCC-27 8. (1991) 3 SCC-91 /^ly^<^>