Those employees thus became employees of Faridabad Complex Administration.
The Trial Court decreed the suit.
Under that Act, they were entitled to Contributory Provident Fund which was paid to them.
Pension scheme was introduced by the Corporation for the first time in 1992.
So far as res judicata is companycerned, admittedly, numbersuit had been filed by the appellants in any companyrt.
The learned single Judge was, therefore, right in allowing the petitions filed by the appellants petitioners.
The plaintiffs then approached this Court.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the respondent No.2 was directed to extend all retrial benefits to the petitioners.
The said appeal is filed by one Hari Chand along with three appellants and legal representatives of one Mr. Gardia.
From the perusal of various provisions of the Act, it was clear, submitted the petitioners, that the function of Municipal Committee was taken over by respondent No.2 under the Act of 1971.
All the petitioners were superannuated prior to 1992 and they were number entitled to pensionary benefits under the scheme.
The learned single Judge observed that since the petitioners were similarly situated to the plaintiffs in a civil suit, they were also entitled to similar benefits.
The learned single Judge, who heard the matter, allowed the petition.
6360 of 2002 may be stated.
He opted for Provident Fund which scheme was applicable then and received the benefits.
Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellants have approached this Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the decision of Division Bench in Dhan Singh v. Faridabad Municipal Corporation, Civil Writ Petition No.
It was, therefore, prayed that the appeals may be allowed and direction may be issued to the Corporation to grant pensionary benefits to the appellants.
In view of the finding on the second point, the suit was decreed and the decree was companyfirmed even by the High Court.
They were governed by Act of 1971 and their service companyditions were regulated by the said Act and the Rules made thereunder.
There, the appellant employees belonged to erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking in the State of Jammu Kashmir were sent on deputation in the State Road Transport Corporation and retired prior to June, 1981.
842 of 2000 dated January 24, 2000 was applicable and the point was companycluded by the ratio of that decision.
It was a new scheme and had numberapplication to retired employees.
On January 1, 1960, the functions of the Development Board were transferred to Notified Area Committee and services of the petitioners were also transferred to the Area Committee.
On merits also, according to the learned companynsel, numbercase had been made out by the appellants.
After his death, his widow and children filed a suit for grant of pensionary benefits.
One of the essential companyditions of res judicata is that the parties must be same, which is absent.
9820 to 9823 of 2002 Pt.
Non extension of those benefits to the appellants would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 as also un reasonable and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Admittedly, all the appellants retired prior to April, 1992.
Since, the scheme was very much operative, benefit of revision ought to be extended to all the employees who were governed by the original scheme and retired prior to revision.
It is well settled, submitted the companynsel, that if a scheme is in existence and is operative, revision, modification or liberalisation thereof would apply to the employees who had retired in the meantime.
The Bench numbered that the learned single Judge did number deal with the provision on the basis of which the prayer had been declined by the respondent Administration.
All Special Leave Petitions were placed for admission, numberices were issued and a direction was given to the Registry to list the matters for final disposal.
Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judge, the Administration preferred Letters Patent Appeals.
The appeals were accordingly allowed and the orders passed by the learned single Judge were set aside.
On the other hand, in State of Punjab v. Justice S.S. Dewan Retired Chief Justice Others, 1997 4 SCC 569, the petitioner claimed retirement benefits on the basis of beneficial provision which was introduced for the first time.
It was urged by learned companynsel that the decision in a civil suit would operate as res judicata against the respondent Corporation.
6352 of 2002 Jai Kishan and Others Appellants Versus Faridabad Complex Administration Others .
In that Writ Petition, the Court negatived the companytention of the petitioners to get pensionary benefits observing that they had numberright to such pension in the light of statutory provision.
Regarding the decree passed in the suit, the attention of the Court was number invited to Rule 3.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which was never companysidered by the Court.
Similar orders were passed in other writ petitions.
The decision in the suit was thus per incuriam and had numberbinding force.
Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed by the High Court.
The learned companynsel for the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, supported the orders of the Division Bench.
One K.L. Gulati, who was also an employee of erstwhile Faridabad Notified Area Committee retired on October 31, 1984 from the respondent Corporation.
They, therefore, made representations to the Administration for grant of those benefits.
It observed that the pension scheme was applied to local bodies including Faridabad Municipal Corporation only from April 16, 1992.
The Division Bench had companymitted an error of law in allowing Letters Patent Appeals and in setting aside the directions issued by the learned single Judge.
It was held by this Court that the said benefit was available to all employees and number only to those who retired after 1981.
So far as Article 14 is companycerned, it was submitted that the civil companyrt had number companysidered the relevant provision of law.
On parity of reasoning, therefore, proceeded the learned single Judge, the petitioners were also entitled to equal treatment.
An appeal filed by the Administration against the decree of the Trial Court came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad.
Hence, even on the ground of equal treatment, the appellants are entitled to the benefits which had been granted by a civil companyrt in favour of employees in a suit.
There is one more reason why the orders passed by the Division Bench should number be held legal and valid.
The decree passed in civil suit attained finality and hence, there was numberreason for respondent No.2 to deprive the petitioners to the benefits which had been granted to plaintiffs in a civil suit.
2846 OF 2005 Arising out of SLP c No.
Such benefit, however, is number available to a newly introduced scheme.
It was also urged that the appellants were similarly situated to the plaintiffs in a civil suit.
The State Government issued an order in 1986 allowing even retired employees to opt for pension.
The companynsel stated that even this Court also took a similar view.
They were, therefore, entitled to those benefits and were given such benefits.
Since the appellants had numberright, the High Court negatived the claim and the action is in accordance with law.
As the benefits were number granted to them, they filed a civil suit which was decreed by the Court of Sub Judge, II Class, Faridabad.
From the record, it appears that these five persons were employees of the Faridabad Development Board which was companyverted into Faridabad Notified Area Committee, later on renamed as Faridabad Complex Administration and finally as Faridabad Municipal Corporation.
The present appeals arise out of orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh on October 18, 2001 in several Letters Patent Appeals.
Udai Bhan and Others Appellants Versus Faridabad Municipal Corporation Others .
2847 2850 OF 2005 Arising out of SLP c Nos.
6360 of 2002 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.
Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.
The Division Bench observed that the companyrt relied upon Notification dated January 13, 1975, but numberreference whatsoever was made to Rule 3.16 of the Rules and particularly Note 1 thereof which expressly excluded the employees of Municipalities from payment of pension.
Admittedly, the appellants had number approached a companyrt of law earlier and were number parties to the suit.
Then in April, 1992, pension scheme was introduced by a numberification dated March 5, 1993.
A suit was instituted by certain employees which was decreed by the Trial Court and the decree was companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court as well as by the High Court.
When a similar benefit was claimed by other employees, the Division Bench in Dhan Singh, numbered that the attention of the Court was number invited to statutory provision Rule 3.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and hence the decision in civil suit would number bind the administration.
Since the appellants were numbermore in service, they were number entitled to claim the said benefit.
By those orders, the Division Bench set aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge in various Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners and dismissed those petitions.
A three Judge Bench of this Court on March 31, 2004 dismissed the appeal by a speaking order.
Arising out of S.L.P. c No.
Appointment Retirement A 1 Hari Chand 30.04.38 10.06.76 A 2 Sohan Lal 23.02.50 31.05.80 A 3 Roshan Lal 01.04.55 30.11.79 A 4 Jetha Nand 26.03.48 30.04.86 A 5 Gardia 01.07.54 31.07.83 It was the case of the petitioners appellants herein that they were appointed by Faridabad Development Board.
To appreciate the companytroversy raised by the parties, relevant facts of the first matter S.L.P. No.
Respondents K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
It was observed that some employees working with Faridabad Development Board, whose services were transferred to Faridabad Complex Administration came to know about the Bye laws formulated by the Administration regarding grant of pensionary benefits after they retired.
In the instant case, the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund was in existence when the appellants retired from service.
In the opinion of the Division Bench, the point was fully companyered by the decision of the Division Bench in Dhan Singh, and the learned single Judge was in error in allowing the petition.
Services of the existing staff of the Municipalities i.e. Municipality of Faridabad and Township, Municipality of Faridabad Old and Municipality of Ballabhgarh were taken over by Faridabad Complex Administration.
The particulars of their service are as detailed below Appellant Name Date of Date of No.
In Dhan Raj Others vs. State of J K Others, 1998 4 SCC 30, D. S. Nakara was followed.
After companying into force of the Faridabad Complex Regulation and Development Act, 1971 Act 42 of 1971 , all the employees were transferred to the Complex Administration.
