Holding

The Court held that it would be inappropriate to interfere and grant restoration of the commuted pension at this stage as it would create disparity between HPCL pensioners and the respondents, and thus dismissed the petition.

Summary

Around 450 former Burmah Shell employees who retired between 1979 and 1984 had earlier obtained a Supreme Court order enhancing their pension to match that of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) pensioners, while the claim for restoration of the commuted portion of their pension was abandoned. In a fresh writ petition under Article 32, they sought restoration of the commuted pension, arguing that HPCL had postponed its own decision on the matter until 1992 and that the earlier order did not bind them. The respondents contended that once HPCL revises its scheme, the petitioners would automatically receive the same benefit and that granting relief now would create a disparity between HPCL pensioners and those of Bharat Petroleum. The Court examined whether interference was appropriate given the short interval since the earlier order and the special pension scheme applicable to the petitioners. It held that granting the relief at this stage would indeed create disparity and therefore dismissed the petition without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court should entertain a fresh petition for restoration of the commuted portion of pension when the earlier petition had abandoned that relief and a recent order had already enhanced pension.
Whether the petitioners are precluded by res judicata or the pending decision of HPCL from seeking the relief now.
Whether granting the relief would create disparity between pensioners of HPCL and those of Bharat Petroleum.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

pensioncommuted pensionrestoration of pensionpublic sector undertakingequalityArticle 32res judicatadisparityHPCLBharat Petroleum

Judgment

BHARAT PETROLEUM (ERSTWHILE BURMAH SHELL)
A MANAGEMENT STAFF PENSIONERS AND ORS.
v.
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
'1'

MARCH 13, 1990
B
[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Labour and Services: Pension-Restoration of commuted por-
tion of pension-Retired staff of Bharat Petroleum (erstwhile Burmah

c
Shell)-Whether and when entitled to. ,,....
Some of the erstwhile employees of Burmah Shell, in an earlier ,_
writ petition, claimed restoration of the commuted portion of pension
and enhancement of pension on par with the pensioners of Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited, (HPCL). At the time of hearing, the
....
D claim for restoration of the commuted portion of pension was given up.
This Court accepted the claim of the petitioners as regards enhance-
ment of pension and ordered a sizeable hike in the pension. The present
writ petition claims the same relief which was given up at the time of
hearing of the earlier writ petition, viz., restoration of commuted por-
lion of pension. Admittedly, HPCL had deferred its decision till 1992 in >---.,
this regard.
"

On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that though, HPCL

•
has deferred its decision till 1992, the petitioners were not precluded
from approaching this Court and that the earlier decision did not
operate as res judicata.
p
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that as soon as -..:
HPCL revises its scheme the petitioners would also be entitled to the
benefit thereof and that grant of the relief earlier would create disparity
between the persons who receive pension from HPCL and those from the
Respondent.
G
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court,

HELD: 1.1. It would be inappropriate to interfere and grant the
relief as prayed for at this stage since that would create disparity bet- 'r~
ween the personnel who receive pension from Hindustan Petroleum
H Corporation Ltd. and the respondent Corporation. t965B]

962
STAFF PENSIONERS v. B.P. CORPN. IK. RAMASWAMY. J.] 963

1.2. This Court has already held that the retired personnel of
A
Burmah Shell would be entitled to a hike in p_ension at par with pensio-
ners of HPCL. (W.P. No. 590/87 decided on ll.5.1988). 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 ll, 1988. After such a short time lag and in
the absence of any substantial change in the position, it is not desirable B
to entertain the claim for restoration of commuted pension. The
petitioners are governed by a special scheme, which ;.. not at par with Govern-
ment employees or the other Public Sector Undertaking'l. [964G-H; 96SA]

Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India, [1987] l SCC 142,
referred to.
c
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 215 of
1989.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
D
M.S. Gujral, Ms. Kirti Misra and B.B. Sawhney for the Petitioners.

G.B. Pari, O.C. Mathur, Ms. Meera and S. Sukumaran for the
.~ Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
K. RAMASWAMY, J. This writ petition under Art. 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 direc-
tion to the respondents to restore full pension (which had been com-
muted) to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and others similarly situated upon f
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 I.hose retired prior
to April 1, 1985 from their respective dates of retirement. They claim
that though in their previous Writ Petition No. 590/87 disposed of by a
Division Bench of this Court on May 11, 1988 of which one of us
(Ranganath Misra, J.) was a member, a hike in the pension effective G
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. 590/87 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 H
964 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [ 1990] I S.C.R.

first relief was given up and submission was confined to the second
A relief. This Court accepted the contentions of the petitioners and
ordered a seizeable hike in the pension. The relief in this writ petition
squarely covers relief No. 1·of Writ Petition No. 590/87. 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-con-
B cern, 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 &
Ors. v. Union of India, [ 1987] 1 SCC 142 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 person-
nel of the Central Government effective from April 1, 1985. It is
c 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 emp-
loyees of the Central Govt. and other Public Sector Undertakings are
D receiving the same benefits, the denial thereof to the petitioners is
arbitrary, unjust and unfair and offends Art. 14 of the Constitution.
There is no scheme in vouge in other Public Sector Undertakings like
commuted pension scheme except in HPCI. Though HPCL has post-
poned action in this regard till 1992, the petitioners are not precluded
to approach this Court for redressal and the previous decision does not
E 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.

Shri Pai, learned counsel for the respondents, has resisted all
these contentions. The short question is whether it is a fit case for
F 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. 590/87. 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 "Burm ah
Shell India Pension Fund" with its own rules. This Court held that the
G retired personnel would be entitled io 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 pen-
sion 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
H not desirable to entertain the claim for restoration of commuted pen-
STAFF PENSIONERS v. B.P. CORPN. [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 965

sion. Admittedly, the petitioners are governed by a special scheme, A
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 whQ receive pension from HPCL and the
respondents. We find sufficient justification in the contention of Shri B
Pai. So we do not feel justified that it would be appropriate to interfere
and grant the refief as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed, but without costs.

G.N. Petition dismissed.

-
J •