- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K.V Rangaiah And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 1, after serving more than thirty years with the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Respondent 2), joined the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) on deputation on 19 March 1984 and was permanently absorbed with effect from 30 June 1984. He retired from NTPC on 31 July 1987. On 21 December 1989 NTPC introduced a “Contributory Scheme for Post-Retirement Medical Facilities” applicable to employees who retired on or after 1 January 1986, subject to certain eligibility conditions. NTPC denied Respondent 1 the benefit of this Scheme because he had not completed the stipulated minimum of five years’ service in NTPC.
Respondent 1 challenged the denial through Writ Petition No. 2024 of 1994 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, impleading both NTPC and the Electricity Board. A learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 17 February 1995, directing that Respondent 1 could claim the post-retirement medical facilities from either NTPC or the Electricity Board at his option. NTPC’s intra-court appeal (Writ Appeal No. 678 of 1995) was dismissed by a Division Bench on 26 July 1995. NTPC thereafter filed the present civil appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the requirement in paragraph 2.1 of NTPC’s Scheme—mandating a minimum of five years’ service in NTPC in addition to ten years’ total Government/PSU service—violates Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore renders Respondent 1 entitled to post-retirement medical benefits despite not meeting that requirement.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent 1’s Arguments
- The five-year NTPC service condition creates an arbitrary and hostile discrimination among retirees, contravening Article 14.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in T.S. Thiruvengadam, Indian Ex-Services League, R.R. Bhanot and Consumer Education and Research Centre to support the plea of equality and non-discrimination.
NTPC’s Arguments
- The Scheme expressly conditions eligibility on completion of at least five years’ service in NTPC; Respondent 1 admittedly served for a shorter period and therefore does not qualify.
- Imposing service-length criteria is a permissible eligibility requirement and does not offend Article 14.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| T.S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to Govt. of India, (1993) 2 SCC 174 | Cited by Respondent 1 to contend that differential treatment among retirees offends Article 14. | The Court stated that the decision had no bearing on the present facts. |
| Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 104 | Invoked to support the plea of equality among similarly situated retirees. | The Court held the case inapplicable to the issue at hand. |
| R.R. Bhanot v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 406 | Relied on by Respondent 1 for the proposition that arbitrary classifications violate Article 14. | The Court found the precedent irrelevant to the present eligibility condition. |
| Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 | Cited to underline the right to health and medical facilities post-retirement. | The Court did not consider it determinative of the eligibility question. |
| Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 | Recognises that prescribing a minimum period of service for pension is an eligibility criterion, not a discriminatory classification. | The Court relied on this authority to uphold NTPC’s five-year service requirement as a valid condition of eligibility under the Scheme. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court characterised the five-year NTPC service stipulation as an integral eligibility condition of the 1989 Scheme, rather than a classification among employees. Citing Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, the Court affirmed that prescribing a minimum period of service prior to superannuation is permissible and does not contravene Article 14, provided all who meet the condition receive equal treatment. The precedents relied upon by Respondent 1 were distinguished as irrelevant because they did not concern the validity of eligibility criteria within a newly introduced benefit scheme. Consequently, the Court concluded that Respondent 1’s failure to satisfy the five-year NTPC service requirement lawfully disentitled him from benefits under the Scheme.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed. The High Court’s direction granting Respondent 1 the benefit of NTPC’s post-retirement medical scheme is set aside; however, Respondent 1 may still avail similar facilities from the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision confirms that employers introducing post-retirement benefit schemes may lawfully impose minimum service-length requirements without violating Article 14, so long as the criteria operate uniformly among all employees. The ruling affects only the parties and does not announce a new broad precedent beyond affirming the principle accepted in Deoki Nandan Aggarwal.
Order
1. The only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether Respondent 1, a retired employee of the National Thermal Power Corporation, the appellant herein, (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant-Corporation”), is entitled to avail the benefits under the Contributory Scheme for Post-Retirement Medical Facilities (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) introduced by the appellant-Corporation on 21-12-1989.
2. Respondent 1 was originally employed with the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Respondent 2 herein, (hereinafter referred to as “the Electricity Board”). After having rendered more than 30 years' service in the Electricity Board, he joined the appellant-Corporation on deputation on 19-3-1984. By order dated 17-7-1984, he was permanently absorbed in the appellant-Corporation with effect from 30-6-1984. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from the services of the appellant-Corporation on 31-7-1987. On 21-12-1989, the appellant-Corporation introduced the Scheme whereby post-retirement medical facilities on contributory basis were extended to the employees who retired from the services of the appellant-Corporation on or after 1-1-1986. Respondent 1 claimed the benefit of the Scheme but he was denied the said benefit on the ground that he did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility contained in para 2.1 of the Scheme. The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2024 of 1994) before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In the said writ petition the Electricity Board was also impleaded as a party. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 17-2-1995, on the view that whenever an employee is absorbed by an organisation he is entitled for all the benefits which others are entitled to and that the denial of the post-retirement medical facilities to Respondent 1 herein was arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The learned Single Judge directed that Respondent 1 is entitled to claim post-retirement medical facilities from either of the two respondents in 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 Article 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) 16 ATC 488, AIR 1991 SC 1182; R.R Bhanot v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 406, (1994) 27 ATC 93 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 Article 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) 19 ATC 219. 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:
“15. … 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. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Alert