The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant judgment, ruling that employees who were transferred from non-pensionable bodies to pensionable establishments are not entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). The decision came in response to a petition filed by a group of employees who sought parity with colleagues directly recruited under the OPS.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, originally employed under the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (a non-pensionable entity), were later absorbed into the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (HPPCL), which follows the OPS. They argued that their transfer should entitle them to the same pension benefits as those who joined the corporation directly. However, the state government opposed this, citing different service conditions.
Key Arguments
- Petitioners' stance: Claimed that their absorption into HPPCL should not disadvantage them regarding pension, as they now serve the same employer.
- Government's response: Stressed that the OPS is applicable only to employees who were recruited under specific rules, and transferred staff cannot claim retrospective benefits.
Court's Observations
The bench, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Surli, noted that the petitioners had not been appointed through the regular process applicable to OPS employees. The court emphasized that pension schemes are governed by specific statutory provisions and cannot be altered based on individual circumstances. The judgment stated: "The transfer from a non-pensionable body does not automatically confer the right to OPS, as the terms of employment are determined by the rules of the absorbing organization."
Implications of the Verdict
This ruling has far-reaching consequences for employees transferred from non-pensionable entities to pensionable ones. It reinforces the principle that pension benefits are linked to the original terms of appointment and not to subsequent transfers. Legal experts suggest that this decision may discourage future litigations on similar grounds.
Reactions
The petitioners expressed disappointment, stating that the judgment creates a disparity among employees within the same organization. Meanwhile, the state government welcomed the order, clarifying that it aligns with existing pension rules. The court also directed the HPPCL to ensure that no employee is unfairly treated regarding other service conditions.
