THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.versusM. ANANCHU ASARI AND ORS.

A           THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.                               ".
                             v.
                  M. ANANCHU ASARI AND ORS.
                                                                                  "f
                             OCTOBER 29, 2003                                    ~


B      (S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.]

         Service Law:

         Pension-Cut-off date-Fixation of-Criterion for-Held : Cannot
C   be arbitrary or whimsical-Date of permanent absorption is a material
    aspect inftxing the date of cut-off

        Pension-Entitlement to-Cut-off date---Fixation of-Transport
   Department employees sent on deputation to newly formed Transport
D Corporation and permanently absorbed later on-Cut-offdate for claiming
  pensionary benefitsftxed as 1.5.1975-Fresh options invited by 28.2.1982-
   High Court struck down ftxation ofcut-offdate as 1. 5.1975 being arbitrary
  and illegal-Correctness of-Held : Process of absorption not completed
   in 1975-Hence, High Court rightly struck down the cut-off date-On
  facts, 1.4.1982 ftxed as the new cut-off date.
E
         Pension-Absorption-Government order calling for fresh opti.Jns          ../
  for pensionary entitlement struck down by High Court-Effect of-Held:
  Such options do not become non est in the eye of law-It shows that the
  process of absorption was not regarded as complete by the Government-
F High Court did not adjudicate upon the validity of cutt-off date-Hence,
  options exercised pursuant to struck down Government order regained
   their efficacy.

         The respondents were originally employed in the State Transport
G Department. Pursuant to the decision taken by the appellant-State to
    form separate Transport Corporation the respondents were sent on
    deputation to the Corpporation up to 30.4.1975. From 1.5.1975 onwards,
    the Corporation had framed its own Rules and absorded the respondent
    permanently based on the options exercised by them.

H        In order to extend the benefit of pension to the Government
                                      1104
              GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU v. M.A. ASARI                   1105

servants permanently absorbed in the State Public Sector Corporations A
based on their options, the appellant-State issued Government Order
for permanent absorption. The last date for exercising options was
fixed as 1.5.1975.

     The High Court held the said cut-off date as illegal and arbitrary. B
The High Court further directed the appellant-State to fix a fresh cut-
off date taking into consideration the services of the respondents.
Hence the appeals.

     On behalf of the appellant it was contended that for all practical
purposes, the process of absorption of the deputed respondents was C
completed by 1.5.1975 by which date even the Transport Department
got disbanded; and that there was nothing arbitrary in the policy
decision fixing the cut-off date as 1.5.1975.

     The following question arose before, the Court.
                                                                          D
     Whether the cut-off date fixed by the Government for the purpose
of entitlement to pension of the erstwhile Transport Department
employees, who were later on absorbed in the Transport Corporations
is constitutionally valid?
                                                                          E
     Disposing of the appeals, the Court

     HELD : 1. Cut-off date fixed by the Government for the purpose
of conferring the pensionary benefits cannot be arbitrary or whimsical.
The date of permanent absorption in the service of the Transport          p
Corporation is a material aspect in fixing· the cut-off date for
pensionary entitlement. This criterion cannot be said to be irrational
or irrelevant. [1113-E, 1113-G-H]

      2. The Government Order (G.O.) gives an unequivocal indication
that the Government itself regarded that the process of absorption was G
not completed in 1975 and that a final exercise of calling for and
accepting the offers should be gone through, maybe, in view of the
change of criteria in regard to the terminal benefits. Hence, the finding
of the High Court that the fixation of cut-off date as 1.5.1975 was
arbitrary cannot be assailed. (1114-C-D, 1115-AJ                          H
    1106               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A        3. The fact that the G.O. pursuant to which fresh options were
    called for was struck down by the High Court does not lead to the
    inference that such options must be regarded as non est in the eye of
    law. inference should be that the process of absorption was not
    regarded as complete by the Government as well as the Corporation.
B   The invalidation of the G.O. by the High Court does not in any way
    displace this factual inference. In fact, the validity of cut-off date was
    apparently no adjudicated upon in the writ petition. The options
    exercised pursuant to the struck down G.O. have for all practical
    purposes regained their efficacy. [1115-B-E]

c        4. In view of the long lapse of time and in order to avoid further
    delay and the scope of possible controversies, instead of leaving it to
    the Government to fix a fresh cut-off date as per the directions of the
    High Court, it is directed that the date 1.4.1982 shall be· adopted as the
    cut-off date. [1115-G]
D
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1444-
    1445 of 1999.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.97 of the Madras High
E   Court in W.A. No. 522/92 and 962 of 1993.

                                     WITH

           C.A. Nos. 1446-1452/99 and 8507 of 2003.

F       V.R. Reddy V. Balalji, Sunil Murarka, P.N. Ramalingam for the
    Appellants.

         Jitendera Sharma, Ms. R. Vaigai, S. Muralidhar, Ms. Minakshi Vij,
    P.N. Jha and Senthil Jagadeesan, V. Ramasubramanian and Mrs. K. Sharda       {

G   Devi (NP) for the Respondents.

         K.V. Viswanathan and K.V. Venkataraman for the Respondent
    No. 5.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
        GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU v. M.A. ASAR! [REDDT, J.]               1107

     P. VENKAT ARAMA REDDI, J. : Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) A
No. 870/2002.

     1. Civil Appeal Nos. 1444-1445 of 1999 are preferred against the
common judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
W.A. Nos. 522 of 1992 and 962 of 1993 dismissing the writ appeals filed B
by the State of Tamil Nadu. The Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)
No. 870 of2002 is against the order of the division bench of the High Court
in Writ Petition No.11985 of 1992 which was allowed following the
judgment in Writ Appeal No. 522 of 1992 and 962 of 1993 referred to
supra. Civil Appeal Nos. 1446-1452 of 1999 are those filed by the State C
of Tamil Nadu against the common order passed in a batch of writ petitions
disposing of the writ petitions filed by the Transport Corporation employees
in terms of the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 522of1992 and 962of1993.
The State has directly approached this Court against the said order of the
learned Single Judge. Thus, the lead judgment is the one rendered by the D
High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 522 of 1992 and 962 of 1993.

      2. Broadly, the issue in these appeals is whether the cutoff date fixed
by the Government for the purpose of entitlement to pension of the
erstwhile Transport Department employees who were later on absorbed in
Transport Corporations, is constitutionally valid? The High Court answered E
that issue in the negative and directed the fixation of cutoff date afresh in
the light of the observations made.

     3. The two writ petitioners in W.P. No. 6969 of 1990 with reference
to which Writ Appeal No. 522of1992 was filed by the State Government, F
were the employees ofNessmony Transport Corporation which was carved
out ofKattabomman Transport Corporation Limited. The latter Corporation
came into existence from l.l.1974. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 7012
of 1988 out of which writ appeal No. 962 of 1993 arose is the workers
union of Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited which was formed with G
effect from l.1.1973. The said writ petitioners including the concerned
members of the workers union were originally employed in the State
Transport Department. Pursuant to the decision taken by the Government
to form separate transport corporations to take over the operation and
management of public transport in the districts concerned, the two H
    1108               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Corporations aforementioned came into existence in 1973 and 1974. The
    assets and liabilities were transferred on certain terms to the newly formed
    Government Companies which in effect have the status of Public Sector
    Undertakings. The writ petitioners and other similarly situated employees
    were deputed to work in the said transport Corporations. For instance, in
B   G.O.MS. No. 651 (Transport) dated 18.7.1973, it was stipulated that all
    employees of the Tamilnadu State Transport Department servin~ in the
    Kanyakumari District for the purpose of running, maintenance and upkeep
    of the transport system in the District will be considered to be employees
    on deputation with the Kattabomman Corporation with effect from 1.1.1974.
C   It was further enjoined that "they will continue to receive the same
    emoluments and enjoy the same conditions of service and privileges till
    such time the Corporation frames its own rules and takes those employees
    in its pay rolls''. The G.O. further provided that the new Corporation shall
    be responsible for meeting all the establishment charges and making
D   pension and leave salary contributions to Government in respect of such
    of those deputed employees of the Transport Department who were iri
    pensionable services.

         4. It is the stand of the State Government as seen from the only
E   counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 6969 of 1990 that all the employees
    absorbed in Kattabomman Transpsort Corporation Limited were on
    deputation upto 30.4.1975 and from 1.5.1975 onwards, the Corporation
    had framed its own rules and absorbed all of them as Corporation
    employees duly accepting the options exercised by them. It is to be
    mentioned at this juncture that options were called for finally only in the
F   year 1982.

          5. The writ petitioners and other similarly situated employees who
    moved the High Court under Article 226 for appropriate reliefs were not
    eligible to pension while in Government service in view of non-fulfillment
G   of the criterion of ten years of qualifying service. It is not in dispute that
    the service ip the Corporation is non-pensionable.

          6. In order to extend the benefit of pension to the Government
    servants permanently absorbed in the Public Sector Undertakings on the
H   basis of options, the State Government issued certain orders from time to
        GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU v. M.A. ASARI [REDDI, J.]                1109

time. In order to appreciate the controversy in proper perspective, a brief A
reference to these G.Os. is necessary. The first one ic; G.O.MS. No. 378
(FR II) dated 18.4.1975. The said G.O. made the following provision for
pension and gratuity.

        "In addition to pay in the pubilc undertaking an optee will be B
        entitled to pension/gratuity earned by him in Government service
        prior to such absorption. If the qualifying service under Government
        is less than ten years, gratuity and Death-cum-Retirement gratuity
        alone will be payable. They are pennitted to draw their pension/
        gratuity immediately on absorption in the Corporation."
                                                                            c
This G.O. was kept in abeyance till further orders were issued in regard
to the terminal benefits to be given to the Government servants who opted
for service in Public Sector undertakings. This was done in G.O.MS No.
1197 dated 22.8.1978. Then, came. G.O.MS. No. 284, Finance (CFC)
Department, dated 31.3. l 980 in supersession of the earlier orders issued D
on the subject including G.O.MS No. 378. According to para 2(iii) of the
said G.O.

         "Pension, in respect of industrial and non industrial workers who
         get themselves absorbed in State owned Corporations/Boards will E
         be calculated at the time of transfer; it is payable by the State
         Government only on retirement of the employee from the public
         sector corporation ....

              Xxx                  xxx                  xxx
                                                                            F
         The pension if any will be paid by the Government direct to the
         absorbed employee after his retirement from the Corporation/
         Board."

Para 3 of the G.O. is the crucial provision. It says-
                                                                            G
         "3. The crucial date for calculating the terminal benefits in re!Opect
         of all .the State Public Sector Corporations except the Transport
         Corporations, will be the date from which the employee is
         continuously working in Corporation or the date of incorporation
         of the Corporation, whichever is later. In respect of Transport H
     1110               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A             Corporations, the crucial date will be I st May, 1975 or the date
              from which the employee is continuously working in the
              Corporation, whichever is later."
                                                           (Emphasis supplied)

B.         7. Thus, as far as the Transport Corporations are concerned, the
     relevant date for the purpose of judging the entitlement of the employees
     who were earlier in Government service was fixed,as !st May, 1975. The
     same G.O. also stipulated that fresh options will be obtained from
     Government servants working in various Corporations/Boards "on the
C    basis of this G.O.". The Corporations/Boards were requested to decide
     absorption of Government servants on the basis of the terminal benefits
     indicated in the G.O. Pursuant to this G.O. a letter was addressed by the
     Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Transport Department on
     5 .1.1982 to all State Transport Undertakings to get fresh options from the
     employees of the erstwhile Tamilnadu State Transport Department
D    employees absorbed in the Corporation. The pro-forma of option form was
     enclosed therewith. The last date for exercise of options was fixed as
     28.2.1982. As a consequence thereof, the Transrort Corporations called for
     options to be submitted by 28.2.I982. It appears that G.O.MS NO. 284,
     dated 31.3 .1980 was quashed by the High Court by its judgment dated
E    18.l.1983 insofar as it took away the benefits conferred by G.O. No. 378
     dated 18.4.1975. Subsequently, G.O.MS. No. 1028 came to be issued on
     23.9.1975. It is this G.O. read with the earlier G.O. 284 that has given rise
     to the grievance of the petitioners - respondents. The relevant portion of
     the G.O. is extracted hereunder : .

F
              " ... Eventhough the erstwhile Tamilnadu State Transport Department
              employees have exercised option for their perman~nt absorption
              in the Transport Corporations on different dates and were working
              continuously in the various Transport Corporations with effect
              from different dates from I. I. 72, the crucial date for their
G             permanent absorption in the Transport Corporations was fixed as
              1.5.75 or the date from which the employees were continuously
              working in the Corporation whichever was later as per orders .,
              issued in the Government order second read above. The crucial
              date already fixed in the G.O. second read above holds good
H             without any change in this regard."
         GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU v. M.A. ASARI [REDD!, J.]                  11 l l

         ("The G.O. 2nd read" is G.O. 284 dated 31.3.1980)                       A
     8. It was further laid down that the terminal benefits of all the
erstwhile Tamilnadu State Transport Department employees working in the
various Transport Corporations should be settled as per the orders issued
in G.O. No. 378 dated 18.4.1975 subject to certain procedural modifications B
set out in the G.O. The pension/gratuity earned by an employee while in
Government service prior to such absorption was protected as was done
by G.O. No. 378.

      9. If the cutoff date stipulated in G.O. l 028 dated 23.9.1985 is applied C
to the case of the writ petitioners, they will not be eligible to get pensionary
benefits. This led to the filing of the writ petitions in the High Court.

      10. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ appeals,
the Government issued G.O. MS. No. 250 (Transport Department) Dated
18.11.1996 further modifying the cutoff date in order to benefit the D
erstwhile State Transport Department employees. The Government while
fixing the crucial date as 15.9.1975 for the pennanent absorption in the
respective Transport Corporations, directed that pensionary benefits should
be granted to those who have completed ten years of qualifying Government
service as on 15.9 .197 5 subject to the condition that no arrears of pension E
shall be given to the employees benefited by the revised date for the period
prior to 1.1.1986. It does not appear that any of the respondents will be
eligible to get pension even if the revised date is taken into account.

       11. In writ petition No. 6969 of 1990, the learned single Judge held F
 that the cutoff date fixed by the Government in G.O.MS. No.I 028 was
 illegal and left it to the Government to fix a fresh cutoff date taking into
 consideration the services of the writ petitioners. In the second writ petition
 also another learned Single Judge of the High Court declared the fixation
·of cutoff date as 1.5.1975/14.9.1975 as illeg1I and arbitrary and directed
 the Government to fix the cutoff date afresh within the stipulated time. At G
 the same time it was indicated in the judgment that date on which the
 options were finally called for i.e., 20.6.1982 would be the appropriate date
 for detennining the eligibility to pension. On appeal, the Division Bench
 of the High Court while affirming the judgments in the two writ petitions,
 concurred with the view expressed by the learned Judge in the latter case H
    1112               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A as regards the fixation of cutoff date with reference to the exercise of
    options in the year 1982. The Division Bench observed thus :
                                           .
             " ... we are of the view that the cut-off date fixed as 1.5.1975 for
             the purpose of computing the terminal benefits of the erstwhile
             Government servants, who came to be subsequently permanently
B
             absorbed in the various Government Undertakings, particularly
             State Transport Undertakings, proceeded on an artificial basis.

             Xxx                 xxx                   xxx

c            ... It is only subsequently, in the year 1982, that such employees
             were asked to finally exercise their option, either way, and various
             employees exercised their option also. For instance, in respect of
             Pallavan Transport Corporation, the said d-ate within which such
             options have to be exercised appears to have been fixed finally
D            by a letter dated 20.6.1982 and in respect of other Corporations,
             it would depend upon the option called for before they were
             finally absorbed as employees of the Corporations, which have
             come into existence. Till the respective employees have exercised
             their options on their volition, they must be considered to continue
E            in service as Government employees only, in view of the fact that
             the actual exercise of option by different employees may be on
             different dates and to have a uniformity among group or category
             of workers pertaining to a particular Corporation, the date on
             which the options were called for finally, or the last date within
             which the options were to be exercised, once and for all finally,
F            may be taken up as the relevant criteria in fixing the cut-off or
            _crucial date for determination of the terminal benefits ...... "
                                                                                    (
           12. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has urged that for
    all practical purposes, the process of absorption of deputed employees was
G   completed by 1.5.1975 by which date even the State Transport Department
    got disbanded. Our attention was drawn to the fact that pursuant to the
    promulgation of the rules known as 'The Pallavan Transport Corporation
    Longevity Pay Scheme and Conditions of Service Rules' which came into
    force on 1st May, 1975, options were called for from the employees on
H   deputation from Government Departments. The option form enclosed to
               GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU v. M.A. ASAR! [REDDI, J.]                 1113

       the Memorandum dated 29 .5 .197 5 issued by the Managing Diector of PTC A
       Ltd. required the employees to declare that they voluntarily opted to serve
     . in the PTC Ltd. and accordingly relinquished all their rights vis-a-vis
       Tamilnadu State Transport Department and that they were willing to get
       absorbed permanently in the said Corporation subject to the service put in
       the State Transport Department being carried over to PTC Ltd. with pay B
       scales, accumulated rights for gratuity, provident fund, pension etc.
       Accordingly, the respondents exercised their options in 1975 itself and the
       process of absorption had thus completed during that year. Having regard
       to this background, there is nothing arbitrary in the policy decision fixing
       the cutoff date for eligibility to pension as 1.5.1975. The learned senior C
       counsel then contended that the relevance and the rationality of fixation
       of the crucial date as 1.5.1975 cannot be faulted merely because on more
       opportunity was given to exercise options in the year 1982. The premise
       on which the impugned judgment proceeded, namely, that the respondents
       continued to be Government employees till final options were exercised
       in February, 1982, according to the learned counsel for the appellants is D
       based on incorrect appreciation of facts. The financial repercussions have
       also been stressed by the learned senior counsel.

            13. We find it difficult to accept the contentions advanced by the
      appellants' counsel. The learned counsel has not disputed the proposition E
      that the cutoff date fixed by the Government for the purpose of conferring
      the pensionary benefits cannot be arbitrary or whimsical. Even according
      to the appellants, the date of permanent absorption in the service of the
      Corporation is a material date and it is in the light of that factor that the
      cutoff date was fixed as 1.5. I 975. The stand taken in the counter affidavit
      filed on bahalf of the Government of Tamilnadu in writ petition No. 6969 F


..    of 1990 is that the writ petitioners were absorbed in the Kattabomman
      Transport Corporation with effect from I .5. I 97 5 on the basis of the options
      exercised by them and that their deputation ended on 30.4.1975. That is
      how the choice of the date I .5. I 975 is sought to be justified. In other words,
      the fixation of cutoff date is sought to be linked up with the completion G
      of the process of absorption. A perusal ofG.Os. 1028 and 250 would also
      make it clear that the Government wanted to fix the date for pensionary
      entitlement to coincide with the date of permanent absorption. The criterion
      cannot be said to be irrational or irrelevant. But, the question is whether
      this factual premises that the process of absorption took place in the year H
    1114               SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A I 975 is correct. Viewed in the light of G.O.MS. No. 284 dated 30. I .1980
  and the subsequent action taken by the Management of the State Transport
  Undertakings, it cannot be said with certitude that the process of absorption
  was completed even in the year I 975. If in fact the process was completed
  by April; 1975, the pertinent question would be why fresh options were
B ~irected to be called for in the year 1980 and actually called for in January,
  1982 and thereafter? G.O.MS. No. 284 dated 30.1.1980 clearly stipulates
  that fresh options shalrbe obtained from the Government servants working
  in various Corporations/Boards. The Corporations/Boards were requested
  to decide the question of absorption of Government servants "on the basis
C of the terminal benefits indicated in the G.O." The sanction. of pension and
  other terminal benefits was made dependent upon the acceptance of
  options. Specific reference has been made in G.O. to the Transport
  Department employees. This G.O. gives an unequivocal indication that the
  Government itself regarded that the process of absorption was not complete
  and that'a final exercise of calling for and accepting the offers should be
D gone through, may be, in view of the change of criteria in regard to the
  terminal benefits. As already noticed, G.O. No. 378 was issued on
  18.4.1975, it was kept in abeyance on 22.8.1978 and thereafter G.O. No.
  284 was issued on 31.3.1980. Thus, the terms and conditions of absorption
  did not take final shape till then. Moreover, even if the respondents had
E submitted the option forms in the year 1975 for the purpose of availling
  the Longevity Pay Scheme or otherwise, there is nothing on record to show        .-
  that the said options were treated as final for all purposes. No m:oterial has
  been placed either before the High Court or before this Court to estabPsh
  that the respondents' deputation came to an end by 1.5 .197 5 and that they
F were absorbed into Corporations' service from that date. Above all, the
  more important point is that nothing has been said in the counter-affidavit
  filed by the State Government before the High Court as to why fresh
  options were provided for by G.O. No. 284 and called for by the
  Corporation in the year 1982, if the entire process was concluded in the
  year 1975 itself. The counter-affidavit merely contains as assertion that
G State Transport Department employees were absorbed into the Transport
  Corporation with effect fro111 1.5 .197 5 by accepting the options. In the
  counter, not even a reference has been made to G.O. No. 284 and the
  options exercised pursuant thereto. There reason for calling for fresh
  options has not been spelt out even in the S.L.P. The factual assertion in
H the counter-affidavit therefore remains unsubstantiated.
                GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU v. M.A. ASARI [REDDI, J.]                 1115
....
              14. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, we cannot accept A
        the plea of the appellants that the absorption did in fact take place in the
        year 1975. In this situation, the justification sought to be made out for
        fixing the cutoff date as 1.5.1975 loses its ground in which case the finding
        of the High Court that the date was arbitrarily fixed cannot be assailed.
                                                                                     B
               15. There is one more point which needs to be considered. In order
        to explain away the effect and effi(;acy of the options catled for in the year
        1982, a contention has been raised that G.O. No. 284 ;:iursuant to which
        the options were called for was struck down by the High Court in a writ
        petition disposed of in the year 1983 and therefore such options must be C
        regarded as non est in the eye of law. We find no merit in this contention.
        H is true that G.O. No. 284 was struck down at the instance of some of
        the employees who were benefited by the earlier G.O. which it superseded.
        But, that is besides the point. What is material is the factual inference that
         is to be drawn from the fact that fresh options were called for by virtue
        of and pursuant to G.O. No. 284. The inference should be that the process D
         of absorption was not regarded as complete by the Government as well as
        the Corporation. The Invalidation of that G.O. by the High Court does not

-        in any way displace this factual inference. In fact the validity of cutoff date
         was apparently not adjudicated in the said writ petition. The options
         exercised purusuant .to G.O. No. 284 have for all practical purposes E
         regained their efficacy with the reiteration of the same cutoff date by the
         subsequent G.O. dated 23.9.1985.

              16. For the reasons aforesaid we find no merit in these appeals. The
        judgment of the High Court is upheld. However, the High Court while F
        indicating that the last date for submitting the options finally should have
        been taken as the basis for fixation of date, gave a direction to the
        Government to fix the relevant date in the light of the observations made
        in the judgment. The High Court proceeded on the basis that it was only
        on 20.6.1982 and thereafter that the options were called for. We are of the
        view that in view of the long lapse of time and in order to avoid further G
        delay and the scope for possible controversies, instead of leaving it to the
        Government to fix a fresh cutoff date as per the directions of the High
        Court, in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we
        direct that the date 1.4.1982 shall be adopted as cutoff date in modification
    ~
I
        of what was prescribed in G.O. No. 1028 dated 23.9.1985 and G.O. No. H
    1116               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 250 dated 18.11.1996. The reason for selecting the said date is that the
    Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Transport Department by his
    letter dated 5.1.1982 addressed to the Managing Directors of all State
    Transport Undertakings requested them to obtain fresh options by 28.2.1982.
    The memo issued by the Managing Director of KTC Ltd. dated 11.1.1982
B   makes it clear that the last date for exercise of options was fixed as
    28.2.1982 in conformity with the Government's directive. The respective
    Corporations were supposed to finalise the options sometime thereafter. It
    is reasonable to presume that PTC Ltd. and other Corporations would have
    also adhered to the same date. The High Court has referred to the Note
    dated 20.6.1982 issued by the Managing Director of PTC (Metro) Ltd. But,
C   it does not fix the last date for submitting the options. It purports to give
    certain instructions as to the follow up action to be taken with reference
    to the options received. Hence, the fixation of cutoff date as 1.4.1982
    would, in our view, be appropriate. Taking into account the aforementioned
    date for the purpose of assessing the requisite length of service, we direct
D   the appellants to take steps to extend the pensionary benefits to the eligible
    employees. Having regard to the conduct of the respondents in seeking the
    remedy long after the options were exercised, we consider it just and proper·
    to direct that the respondent-employees whoever have retired should get
    the arrears of pension only from l. l .1988 which date is fixed with
E   reference to the year of filing the first writ petition namely W.P. No. 7012
    ·of 1988. The fixation of pension and payment of arrears should be done
    accordingly within a period of four months from today. The appellants are
    entitled to adjust the monetary benefits which the employees would not
    have received if they were to receives the pention.

F          17. The civil appeals are disposed for accordingly wthout costs.

    v.v.s.                                                 Appeals disposed of.