WA/888/2024 of Union of India Vs T.V.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR on 15 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ appeal has been instituted by Union of India under Clause XV of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 04.09.2023 made in W.P.No.1975 of 2020.

2. The facts in nut shell are that the respondent was initially appointed under the Government of India and subsequently on formation of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), he exercised his option and consequently, transferred to Food Corporation of India. Thus, service conditions as applicable to the employees of Food Corporation of India were made applicable to the respondent. Under Section 12(A) of the FCI Act an opportunity was given to transferee employees like the respondent to opt for the scale of pay applicable to the post held by such employee under the Government immediately before the date of transfer or the scale of pay applicable to the post under the Corporation to which the employee was transferred. The respondent also opted for terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Central Government. After his retirement, terminal benefits were provided on the basis of industrial dearness allowance instead of central dearness allowance. The issue arose since the respondent had opted to receive Central Government benefits and his terminal pensionary benefits are settled based on the industrial dearness allowance. Cases were filed by few employees. The issue went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another -vs- P.N.Natarajan and Others (2010 12 SCC 405 held that, such employees opted for Central Government benefits are also entitled for Central dearness allowance. Accordingly, a direction was issued to revise the dearness allowance on par with the Central Government employees and settle the terminal benefits.

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan appearing for the appellants would submit that, in the present case the respondent retired from service on 30.04.1998 and after the lapse of 17 years he filed a representation on 08.07.2015. Therefore, he is to be considered as a fence sitter and the relief granted by the writ court is contrary to law.

4. This Court is of the considered view that, no doubt there is a delay in approaching the court of law. However, pension related grievances are continuing cause of action and in the present case, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the year 2010 ought to have been extended to all the similarly placed persons without driving them to approach the court of law. The Food Corporation of India or the Central Government, as the model employer and is expected to extend similar benefits to the similarly placed persons without forcing them to approach the court of law for settling the benefits on par with their colleagues who are all similarly placed. They cannot now turn around to say that that there was a delay in approaching the court of law. In some cases, after retirement the employee may not be aware of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India or otherwise. However, dearness allowance is connected with the monthly pension and therefore it has been considered as a continuing cause. Delay cannot be the sole ground to deny the pensionary benefits in the present case.

5. This Court is of the considered view that the benefit is to be extended to the respondent from the date of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ie., 10.02.2010. Regarding the delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maya Banerjee -vs- Union of India (2026) INSC 959 held as follows: “ In our view, the ratio in S.K.Mastan Bee (supra) has dealt with the specific issue of restricting the past arrears of pension in more appropriate manner and the same having not been considered by the latter Bench of equal strength in Tarsem Singh (supra), the only choice open to us is to rely on S.K.Mastan Bee (supra) to allow the present appeals.”

6. Therefore, the Courts in appropriate cases grant the relief provided the cause is genuine. In the present case, dearness allowance attached to the pension is considered a genuine cause, so also the retirement benefits. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the writ order impugned. However, the benefits extended by the writ court in its impugned order dated 04.09.2023 is to be extended from the date of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another -vs- P.N.Natarajan and Others (2010 12 SCC 405 dated 10.02.2010. The appellants are directed to revise the pensionary benefits including the central dearness allowance and settle the same with effect from 10.02.2010 and based on the subsequent pay commissions and all other consequential monetary benefits to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 15-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. KST WA No. 888 of 2024 AND CMP NO. 6247 OF 2024 15-09-2026