Summary of the Judgment
Case Name:Â UP Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association vs State of U.P. & Anr.
Date:Â 26 July 2024
Judges:Â Honorable Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Honorable Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Acts and Sections: Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 U.P. Civil Service Regulations, Article 350 Employees Provident Fund Scheme
Cited Judgments: U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Mirza Athar Beg The Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C vs. S.M. Fazil & 03 others U.P.S.R.T.C & Ors. vs. Shri Narain Pandey Union of India & Ors. vs. M.K. Sarkar Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India National Council of Educational Research and Training vs. Shyam Babu Maheshwari & Ors. All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. The Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees & Ors. vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission Prabhu Narain vs. State of U.P. Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Mohini Devi
Introduction
In the landmark case of UP Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association vs State of U.P. & Anr., the Supreme Court of India addressed the pension entitlements of former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, a temporary department of the State Government, who were later absorbed by the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation.
Background and Core Issue
The primary issue revolved around whether the former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, upon their absorption into the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation, held any pensionable posts that would entitle them to pension benefits. The contention arose from the interpretation of various Government Orders (GOs) and the application of Article 350 of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations.
Historical Context
Uttar Pradesh Roadways was established as a temporary department in 1947, with its employees initially appointed on a temporary basis. Over the years, several GOs were issued to define the service conditions and benefits for these employees:
GO dated 16.09.1960Â outlined the service conditions of Roadways employees, differentiating their terms from regular government servants.
GO dated 28.10.1960Â provided for pension benefits to permanent employees while stating that non-permanent employees would be covered under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme.
Article 350 of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations was amended on 20.04.1997 but retained Note 3, which excluded non-gazetted posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions from pension benefits.
Arguments and Submissions
The appellants, former employees of the Roadways, argued that:
They were entitled to pension based on their permanent status prior to the creation of the Corporation in 1972.
The amendment to Article 350 in 1977 extended pension benefits to all establishments unless specifically excluded.
Previous High Court judgments in similar cases (Mirza Athar Beg, S.M. Fazil, and Shri Narain Pandey) supported their claims.
The respondents, represented by learned senior counsel Ms. Garima Prasad, contended that:
The appellants had already received post-retirement benefits under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and could not now claim pension benefits.
The judgments relied upon by the appellants did not consider the impact of Note 3 of Article 350 and the specific provisions of the GOs and Regulations.
Court's Findings
Honorable Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivering the judgment, observed:
The appellants were not appointed to any permanent or pensionable posts as per the GO dated 28.10.1960.
The High Court rightly dismissed the appellants' claims, noting that they had accepted their post-retirement benefits without protest.
The principle of approbate and reprobate applied, preventing the appellants from claiming pension benefits after having opted for and received Provident Fund benefits.
"A party to the litigation cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate."
The Court also distinguished the appellants' case from the judgments in Mirza Athar Beg, S.M. Fazil, and Shri Narain Pandey, noting that the employees in those cases held permanent posts and were thus eligible for pension under the GOs and Regulations.
Detailed Examination of Article 350 and GO dated 28.10.1960
The judgment delves into the specifics of Article 350 of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations and the Government Orders (GOs) that play a crucial role in determining the pension eligibility of the employees. Article 350 stipulates that all establishments, whether temporary or permanent, are deemed to be pensionable, provided the State Government does not rule otherwise. However, Note 3 explicitly excludes non-gazetted posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions from pension eligibility. The Court highlighted that despite amendments, this exclusion remained intact, impacting the appellants' claims.
"Service in non-gazetted posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh does not qualify for pension."
The GO dated 28.10.1960 further clarified pension eligibility, specifying that only certain categories of permanent employees would qualify for pension benefits. This GO distinguished between permanent gazetted and non-gazetted posts, with the latter being ineligible for pension but eligible for Provident Fund benefits. Temporary employees were also deemed non-pensionable, reinforcing the non-pensionable status of the appellants.
Application of Precedents and Legal Principles
The judgment scrutinizes the precedents cited by the appellants, including cases like Mirza Athar Beg, S.M. Fazil, and Shri Narain Pandey. The Court noted significant factual differences in these cases, particularly the permanent and pensionable status of the employees involved, which did not apply to the appellants. The principle of approbate and reprobate, as well as the necessity for employees to conform to the specific terms of their employment regarding pension eligibility, were emphasized.
"Pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme."
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing the appeals. It reiterated that pension is a constitutional right, but it must be claimed under the relevant rules or schemes. Employees covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and not holding pensionable posts cannot claim pension benefits.
This judgment underscores the importance of clear legislative and regulatory frameworks in determining employee benefits and the necessity for employees to be aware of their entitlements and the conditions attached to them. The decision provides a critical precedent for similar cases involving the interpretation of service conditions and pension entitlements in public sector organizations.
Comments