Case: National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Vs. K.V. Rangaiah &amp; Another

the writ petition namely, the appellant Corporation or the Electricity Board according to his choice. The appellant Corporation filed an appeal (Writ Appeal No. 678 of 1995) against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Electricity Board did not assail the said judgment. The appeal of the appellant Corporation has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 26-7-1995. The learned Judges have held that the action of the appellant Corporation in drawing a line between employees who have served them for five continuous years or more and those who have come to them by transfer of service from other Central Government or State Government organisations but have not served with them for five years suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and that it is unfair to deny the benefits of the Scheme on the ground that one has served for a longer period and another has served for a shorter period. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant Corporation has filed this appeal. 3. The relevant provision of the Scheme relating to eligibility of employees to avail the benefit of the Scheme is contained in para 2.1 which reads as under: "2.1 The Scheme will apply to the following categories of NTPC employees: (i) Employees who separate from the Company on account of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or are separated by the Company on medical grounds: Provided that the employees concerned have completed a minimum qualifying period of ten years of continuous service in Central/State Government/Public Sector Undertaking, out of which a minimum five years shall be in NTPC. (ii) Board level appointees, on completion of their tenure." 4. Under clause (i) of para 2.1 it has been provided that the minimum qualifying period for an employee to be eligible for availing the benefit of the Scheme is ten years service. The said ten years service can also be in the Central/State Government / Public Sector Undertaking but out of the said service a minimum five years service has to be in the appellant Corporation. Respondent 1 fulfils the requirement of ten years service in a Central/State Government / Public Sector Undertaking since he was earlier employed with the Electricity Board. But he does not fulfil the second requirement regarding minimum five years service in the appellant Corporation. The submission of the learned counsel for Respondent 1 is that the imposition of this condition of five years minimum service in the appellant Corporation is violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution and that it results in arbitrary and hostile discrimination between the same set of employees who retired from service of the appellant Corporation on or after 1-1-1986. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decisions of this Court in T. S. Thiruvengadam v. Secy, to Govt. of India (1993 (2) SCC 174 : 1993 (24) ATC 102); Indian Ex Services League v. Union of India (1991 (2) SCC 104 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 536); R.R. Bhanot v. Union of India (1994 (2) SCC 406 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 557) and Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995 (3) SCC 42 : AIR 1995 SC 922 ). 5. We have carefully considered the said submissions of the learned counsel in the light of the judgments referred to above but we are unable to accept the same. The requirement regarding five years minimum service in the appellant Corporation as prescribed in para 2.1 is one of the conditions of eligibility for availing the benefits under the Scheme. Since conditions of eligibility could validly be imposed while introducing the Scheme (which was introduced for the first time on 21-12-1989) we are unable to appreciate how the imposition of the aforementioned condition prescribing a minimum period of service in the appellant Corporation for being eligible to avail the benefits under the Scheme is violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Art.14 of the Constitution of India. We may, in this context, refer to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 248). In that case the Court was dealing with para 2 of Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, which prescribes seven years service for a High Court Judge for the purpose of pension. The Allahabad High Court had held that the said provision discriminates between those who have completed seven years service and those who have not completed that much service. The said view of the High Court was reversed by this Court. It was held: "75. ... Prescribing a minimum period of service before retirement on superannuation, for pension is the very scheme itself and not a classification. It is so to say a qualification for eligibility. It is different from computation of pension. All those who satisfy that condition are eligible to get pension." 6. So also in the present case it can be said that prescribing a minimum period of five years service in the appellant Corporation before retirement on superannuation for being entitled to avail the benefit of the Scheme is a part of the Scheme itself and is a qualification for eligibility and it cannot be regarded as a classification. The decisions on which reliance have been placed by the learned counsel have no bearing on the facts of this case.7. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar as it holds that Respondent 1 is entitled to claim the benefit of the Scheme under the appellant Corporation cannot, therefore, be upheld and has to be set aside. The said decision insofar as it holds that the respondent can avail the post retirement medical facilities that are available in the Electricity Board is, however, not disturbed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The requirement regarding five years minimum service in the appellant Corporation as prescribed in para 2.1 is one of the conditions of eligibility for availing the benefits under the Scheme. Since conditions of eligibility could validly be imposed while introducing the Scheme (which was introduced for the first time onwe are unable to appreciate how the imposition of the aforementioned condition prescribing a minimum period of service in the appellant Corporation for being eligible to avail the benefits under the Scheme is violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Art.14 of the Constitution of India. We may, in this context, refer to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : 1992 SCC248). In that case the Court was dealing with para 2 of Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, which prescribes seven years service for a High Court Judge for the purpose of pension. The Allahabad High Court had held that the said provision discriminates between those who have completed seven years service and those who have not completed that much service.So also in the present case it can be said that prescribing a minimum period of five years service in the appellant Corporation before retirement on superannuation for being entitled to avail the benefit of the Scheme is a part of the Scheme itself and is a qualification for eligibility and it cannot be regarded as a classification. The decisions on which reliance have been placed by the learned counsel have no bearing on the facts of this case.7. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar as it holds that Respondent 1 is entitled to claim the benefit of the Scheme under the appellant Corporation cannot, therefore, be upheld and has to be set aside. The said decision insofar as it holds that the respondent can avail the post retirement medical facilities that are available in the Electricity Board is, however, not disturbed.o also in the present case it can be said that prescribing a minimum period of five years service in the appellant Corporation before retirement on superannuation for being entitled to avail the benefit of the Scheme is a part of the Scheme itself and is a qualification for eligibility and it cannot be regarded as a classification. The decisions on which reliance have been placed by the learned counsel have no bearing on the facts of this case.