Summary
The Supreme Court rejected former government employees’ claim to retain Central Government pension after voluntary absorption in VSNL with less than ten years’ qualifying government service. The pension-retention option preserved existing eligibility rather than creating it or permitting the missing service to be supplied by later VSNL employment. Their entitlement instead fell under the memorandum’s provident-fund contribution provision with 6% simple interest. An earlier final representative writ decision also barred relitigation.
Issues
- Whether employees absorbed in VSNL before ten years’ qualifying government service could retain government pension.
- Whether the earlier representative writ decision bound the appellants.
Provisions considered
- Rule 37(1), Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972Voluntary absorption effected deemed retirement from government service on the absorption date. (¶ 8.1–8.3)
- Clauses (a), (b) and (c), Department of Pension and Pension Welfare Office Memorandum dated 5 July 1989Retention of pension depended on eligibility under government rules; those lacking the qualifying service received the clause (c) provident-fund contribution benefit with 6% simple interest. (¶¶ 2.2, 8.4, 8.8)
Held
- On absorption on 2 January 1990, the appellants’ government service ended. Admittedly lacking ten years’ qualifying service then, they could not obtain pension through an option to retain benefits for which they were ineligible. (¶ 8.1–8.4)
- The memorandum had to be read as a whole and with the pension rules and the express option clarification. Its pension-retention clauses did not create a new eligible category independent of the qualifying-service requirement. (¶ 8.3–8.4)
- The earlier Vasaikar proceedings were brought representatively through the employees’ federation and decided the same entitlement. That unchallenged merits decision had attained finality and barred the present relief by res judicata. (¶ 8.5–8.7)
- Clause (c) applied: the employees were entitled to the amount equal to provident-fund contribution for their government-service period with 6% simple interest as the opening CPF balance. (¶ 8.8)
Result
Appeal dismissed and High Court judgment affirmed. Pension claim rejected; clause (c) provident-fund benefits applicable. Impleadment and other pending applications disposed of in these terms.