Mukesh Nigam v. State Of Punjab



  


 

 


   

!"

#$

"%&'&#( )**

+,"'- &. / (0 #!-"1'

***"!&!&#("1'

2"1'+'

3! !"

#$ +(4 5 (0 #!-"1'

***"'6#(0"(!'

 )  7 8 * 3
  3 3 3
 

      





  
 !  # 

$ $ $
 



 %  #

 &   # ('    '   )* )+ ,),- .
/-

"''

   

 ,+ )0 ,),1 .
/*

 # 

 

  3  )* )+ ,),- .
/-

"''

 ,+ )0 ,),1

 .
/*

'# '

&''#  

4  &'#   '#   '

 &' #  &'# #   

'# &  ! &   

 

  '& & &'# '#

&'#

  &'# &&  '

  5'

6 '
 ! 7





  !

 " #!   $ % $  

&# $ '

$'

&$ ()'     %



 

    "   '  '# '&   



&''#   89 '

&



% &*++ ,-.

,-."

 

"

! 

 

&/ 0 

 

 

'     & # "

  . :'  4 10.2 In the case of T.M. Sampath and Ors. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Ors. (supra), the employees of National Water Development Agency (NWDA), an autonomous body under the aegis and control of Ministry of Water Resources claimed the pensionary benefits on par with the Central Government employees. Refusing to allow such pensionary benefits to the employees of NWDA on par with the Central Government employees, in paragraphs 16 and 17, it was observed and held as under:- ;16. On the issue of parity between the employees of NWDA and Central Government employees, even if it is assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist or were not applicable on the date of the OM i.e. 1-5-1987, the relevant date of parity, the principle of parity cannot be applicable to the employees of NWDA.

NWDA cannot be treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution merely on the basis that its funds are granted by the Central Government. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649], it was held by this Court that the autonomous bodies having some nexus with the Government by itself would not bring them within the sweep of the expression "State" and each case must be determined on its own merits. Thus, the plea of the employees of NWDA to be treated on a par with their counterparts in the Central Government under sub-rule (6)(iv) of Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, merely on the basis of funding is not applicable.

17. Even if it is presumed that NWDA is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, the appellants have failed to prove that they are on a par with their counterparts, with whom they claim parity. As held by this Court in UT, Chandigarh v. Krishan Bhandari [(1996) 11 SCC 348], the claim to equality can be claimed when there is discrimination by the State between two persons who are similarly situated. The said discrimination cannot be invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two different authorities functioning as State under Article 12. Thus, the employees of NWDA cannot be said to be "Central Government employees" as stated in the OM for its applicability." As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same

service benefits on par with the Government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par."

 '     

    

12

3.,

   %24 5  

&

"2'6)  

 ,



 '  & '  '   %24 5  '+  '  &'#  3  ,+ )0 ,),1 

   

  &  &   '&

  ' # "   5'

6 '

!

' ' # " 

& (    & 

 (' 89 '

&

% / 07  $  '+  '   & ' & '

 &

  

&  " '# & #9"/5"1 :



 3 3 3