- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bharat Petroleum Man... v. Bharat Petroleum Cor...
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ petition under Article 32 was filed on behalf of about 450 erstwhile employees of M/s Burmah Shell who retired between May 1, 1979 and December 1984. The petition sought a mandamus directing the respondents to restore the full pension that had been commuted, upon expiry of specified periods from retirement (12 1/2 years for those retired prior to April 1985 and 11 1/3 years for those retired after April 1, 1985).
The petitioners had earlier approached the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987, which was disposed of on May 11, 1988 (reported as (1988) 3 SCC 32). In that earlier writ petition, two reliefs were initially sought: (i) restoration of the commuted portion of pension, and (ii) enhancement of pension on par with pensioners of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). During the hearing, the petitioners gave up the first relief and confined submissions to the second. The Court granted a sizeable hike in pension effective from May 1, 1988, leaving the restoration question unaddressed in that decision.
The petitioners returned to court on the basis that HPCL had deferred its decision regarding restoration of commuted pension for its pensioners until 1992, allegedly frustrating the petitioners’ expectation of similar action by HPCL.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should, in this Article 32 petition, direct restoration of the commuted portion of pension to Burmah Shell pensioners after the specified period from retirement.
- Whether, in light of the earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987 and the absence of a substantial change in circumstances, it was appropriate to entertain and grant the relief now sought.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The present petition sought restoration of the commuted portion of pension, which corresponded to relief No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987 (earlier given up during hearing), and was said to have been left for later consideration.
- They relied on Common Cause v. Union of India ((1987) 1 SCC 142; (1987) 2 ATC 100), asserting that the principle of restoring commuted pension after 15 years (effective April 1, 1985 for Central Government civil servants and armed forces personnel) should apply to them as well.
- They contended that denial of similar benefits, when Central Government employees and other public sector undertakings allegedly received them, was arbitrary and offended Article 14 of the Constitution.
- They asserted the respondents’ additional liability would be only Rs 1,02,41,635, which could be borne out of “huge profits” without affecting functioning.
- They submitted that the earlier decision did not operate as res judicata and that postponement by HPCL did not preclude them from seeking relief.
Respondents' Arguments
- Respondents resisted the petitioners’ contentions and framed the matter as a “short question” of whether this was a fit case for interference and issuance of direction.
- They emphasized that petitioners had claimed this relief in Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987 and that the Court, after consideration, granted a sizeable hike in pension to meet the ends of justice.
- They pointed to Burmah Shell having a unique pension arrangement, the “Burmah Shell India Pension Fund,” governed by its own rules, and asserted that the petitioners were governed by a special scheme not on par with government employees or other PSUs.
- They noted that HPCL itself had not granted restoration of commuted pension after 15 years to its pensioners.
- They argued that granting relief now would create disparity between HPCL pensioners and the petitioners.
- In fairness, counsel for respondents stated that as and when HPCL revises its scheme, petitioners would be entitled to the same benefits.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Common Cause v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 142, (1987) 2 ATC 100 | Petitioners cited it for the “15 years formula,” i.e., restoration of the commuted portion of pension for Central Government civil servants and armed forces personnel effective from April 1, 1985. | The Court’s reasoning in the provided opinion did not apply the Common Cause formula to the petitioners; instead, it declined to entertain the restoration claim at this stage due to the prior recent order and lack of substantial change, and due to disparity concerns vis-à-vis HPCL pensioners. |
| Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987, decided on May 11, 1988; reported as (1988) 3 SCC 32 | Cited as the earlier proceeding where petitioners sought (i) restoration of commuted pension and (ii) enhancement to match HPCL; the restoration claim was given up and a sizeable hike in pension was granted. | Treated as a recent, relevant prior adjudication: the Court relied on the proximity of that order and the absence of a substantial change in circumstances as a key reason to decline interference and deny restoration in the present petition. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court framed the matter narrowly as whether it was a fit case for interference and for issuing a direction to grant the prayed relief. It noted that the petitioners had admittedly claimed the same restoration relief in Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987, but that the Court, after considering the matter then, held that a sizeable hike in pension would meet the ends of justice.
The Court emphasized that Burmah Shell had a unique pension scheme, the “Burmah Shell India Pension Fund,” governed by its own rules, and that petitioners were governed by a special scheme not at par with government employees or other public sector undertakings.
A decisive factor in the Court’s analysis was that HPCL itself had not provided restoration of the commuted portion of pension after expiry of 15 years. Given that the earlier Supreme Court order was recent (May 11, 1988) and that there was no “substantial change in the position” within the short intervening period, the Court considered it undesirable to entertain the restoration claim.
The Court accepted the respondents’ concern that granting restoration at that stage would create disparity between HPCL pensioners and the petitioners, and found sufficient justification in that contention. It also recorded respondents’ counsel’s statement that when HPCL revises its scheme, petitioners would be entitled to the same benefits.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to direct restoration of the commuted portion of pension at that stage, without costs.
The direct effect was that petitioners did not receive restoration of the commuted portion of pension through this petition. The Court indicated that extending restoration immediately could create disparity vis-à-vis HPCL pensioners, and recorded that petitioners would be entitled to similar benefits if and when HPCL revises its scheme. The opinion does not articulate any broader implications beyond the immediate dispute, nor does it state that it lays down a new rule of law.
K. Ramaswamy, J.— This writ petition under Article 32 filed on behalf of about 450 erstwhile employees of M/s Burmah Shell retired between May 1, 1979 and December 1984, is for a mandamus or direction to the respondents to restore full pension (which had been commuted) to petitioners 2 to 5 and others similarly situated upon the expiry of 12 1/2 years from date of retirement in case of those retired prior to April 1985 and after 11 1/3 years to those retired after April 1, 1985 from their respective dates of retirement. They claim that though in their previous Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987 disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on May 11, 1988 (1988) 3 SCC 32 of which one of us (Ranganath Misra, J.) was a member, a hike in the pension effective from May 1, 1988 was granted. Consideration of the present relief had been left over for a later period. Admittedly, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987 sought two reliefs, namely, (i) restoration of the commuted portion of the pension, and (ii) enhancement of pension on par with the pensioners of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, for short ‘HPCL’. During the course of hearing, claim for the first relief was given up and submission was confined to the second relief. This Court accepted the contentions of the petitioners and ordered a sizeable hike in the pension. The relief in this writ petition squarely covers relief No. 1 of Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987. But the ground on which the petitioners have again come before the court within a short spell is that their hope of the respondent's sister-concern, namely, HPCL, restoring commuted portion of pension to its pensioners has been smashed as it has deferred its decision on the issue till 1992. Their learned counsel contends that in Common Cause v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 142, (1987) 2 ATC 100, this Court upheld the 15 years formula and directed that the commuted portion of the pension should be restored to all the civil servants as well as the armed forces personnel of the Central Government effective from April 1, 1985. It is maintained that as principle the same would be applicable to the petitioners as well. The respondents, it is claimed, have to bear an additional liability of only a sum of Rs 1,02,41,635, out of its huge profits without in any manner affecting its functioning. When the employees of the Central Government and other Public Sector Undertakings are receiving the same benefits, the denial thereof to the petitioners is arbitrary, unjust and unfair and offends Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no scheme in vogue in other Public Sector Undertakings like commuted pension scheme except in HPCL. Though HPCL has postponed action in this regard till 1992, the petitioners are not precluded to approach this Court for redressal and the previous decision does not operate as res judicata. This Court having accorded in equity benefits of pension, which is a legal right of the petitioner, the relief also may be granted to the petitioners.
2. Shri Pai, learned counsel for the respondents, has resisted all these contentions. The short question is whether it is a fit case for interference and issue of a direction to the respondents to give the relief as prayed for. Admittedly, the petitioners claimed this relief in Writ Petition No. 590 of 1987. This Court after appropriate consideration held that a sizeable hike in pension would meet the ends of justice. Admittedly, Burmah Shell has a unique scheme known as “Burmah Shell India Pension Fund” with its own rules. This Court held that the retired personnel would be entitled to a hike in pension at par with pensioners of HPCL. Admittedly, HPCL has not accorded to its pensioners the relief of restoration of the commuted portion of pension after the expiry of 15 years. The order passed by this Court is as recent as May 11, 1988. After such a short time lag and in the absence of any substantial change in the position, in our considered view, it is not desirable to entertain the claim for restoration of commuted pension. Admittedly, the petitioners are governed by a special scheme, which is not at par with government employees or the other Public Sector Undertakings. In all fairness Shri Pai also has stated that as and when HPCL revises its scheme the petitioners would be entitled to the same benefits. Grant of the relief at this stage would create disparity between the personnel who receive pensions from HPCL and the respondents (sic petitioners). We find sufficient justification in the contention of Shri Pai. So we do not feel justified that it would be appropriate to interfere and grant the relief as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but without costs.
Alert