Important Point
Uttar Pradesh (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 have no retrospective operation and one thus not applicable to those employees belonging to the Palika (Centralised) Service, who retired from service prior to the coming into force of the Rules.

Headnote:Uttar Pradesh (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981-Rule 3(2) and (3)-Applicability-Whether Rules can be said to have retrospective operation? (No).
       Held : We have examined the Rules carefully and there is no express provision in the Rules giving it retrospective operation. The question then arises as to whether from any of the provisions contained in the Rules is it possible to infer that the Rules have been given retrospective operation. (Para 6)
       Held also : On examining the provisions contained in Pension and General Provident Fund Regulations or Rules which governed the case of employees of Palika, more particularly the provisions of Clause 5-C(1) we find that final withdrawals under the Regulation is permitted in the case of Municipal servants who have either rendered 25 years service or have less than 8 years to attain the age of superannuation. The purpose for which such final withdrawal is permissible is enumerated in other sub-clauses of said Clause 5-C. In this view of the matter the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that final withdrawal is permissible only on the date of superannuation cannot be sustained and the expression ‘final withdrawal’ as envisaged under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 would mean those final withdrawals made by an employee while continuing in service for the purposes mentioned in sub-clause (2) of Clause 5-C. Consequently, the argument that a combined reading of sub-clause (3) and sub-clause (2) of Rule 3 indicates that the Rules have retrospective application is devoid of any force and the same accordingly stands rejected. (Para 7)
       Held further : (1990) 3 SCC 521 or (1988) 1 SCC 305 do not apply.
       Held finally : This being the position the appellant having superannuated prior to the Rule coming into force cannot claim the right to pension under the Rules with the help of the decisionof this Court in Nakara (supra) and further in view of our conclusion that the Rules do not have any retrospective operation the relief sought for by the appellant to get pension under the Rules cannot be granted. (Para 10)
       In the premises, as aforesaid, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances there will no order as to costs. (Para 11)

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment dated 13th of November, 1995 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 557 of 1987. Hari Ram Gupta, husband of the present appellant, had filed the writ petition seeking a mandamus from the court to the appropriate authorities to give him the benefits of the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). But said Hari Ram Gupta had retired from service on superannuation in the year 1980. He, however, claimed that he would be entitled to pension under the Rules as the Rules are intended to apply retrospectively and at any rate following the principle of the Judgment of this Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India1, the court should grant him the relief. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to hold that the Rules have no retrospective operation, and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to claim pension under the Rules. Soon after the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the husband of the appellant having died, the widow filed the special leave application out of which this appeal arises. The sole question for consideration is whether the Rules can be said to have any retrospective application and are applicable to those employees belonging to the Palika (Centralised) Service, who retired from service prior to the coming into force of the Rules. It is not disputed that before the Rules came into operation there was no rules providing pension for the employees of the centralised services.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that a conjoint reading of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 3 would make it crystal clear that the Rule is applicable even to those employees who have retired from service on the date the Rules came into operation, provided they exercise their option in accordance with the Rules within the stipulated period of 90 days from the enforcement of the Rules and they deposit the amount finally withdrawn from Palika’s contribution and bonus deposited in his Provident Fund Account into the pension fund established under Part VI of the Rules. According to the learned counsel unless such an interpretation is given, the provision of sub-rule (3) would become otiose inasmuch as an officer is entitled to finally withdraw the amount from the Provident Fund on superannuation and not while he continues to be in service. The learned counsel further contended that under identical circumstances an employee of a school under New Delhi Municipal Committee had approached this Court in the case of Shakuntala Mehrishi, New Delhi v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors.2 and this Court had granted the retiral benefits to the employee. The aforesaid decision, contends the learned counsel for the appellant, should apply will full force to the case in hand. The learned counsel further urged that the Rules in question providing for pension, if is held to apply to only those employees who retired subsequent to the coming into force of the Rules and not to those to have already retired, then it would be violative of the law laid down by this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) inasmuch as pension paid is not a bounty nor an ex-gratia payment for past services rendered and is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand contended that there is no ambiguity in the Rules and nowhere the Rules indicate that it would apply retrospectively on certain conditions being fulfilled. He further contended that under the provisions of the Regulation for payment of Provident Fund made by Nagar Palika, Jhansi an employee is entitled to finally withdraw after rendering 25 years of service or w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 676

Important PointUttar Pradesh (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 have no retrospective operation and one thus not applicable to those employees belonging to the Palika (Centralised) Service, who retired from service prior to the coming into force of the Rules.

Cases Referred (6)

Important Point
Uttar Pradesh (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 have no retrospective operation and one thus not applicable to those employees belonging to the Palika (Centralised) Service, who retired from service prior to the coming into force of the Rules.