Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
State Of U.P. & Ors.- Appellant
Versus
Virendra Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.4802-4803 of 2019
With
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr – Petitioners
Versus
Virendra Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition(C)No.4815 of 2019
With
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr – Petitioners
Versus
Chandra Pal Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition(C)No.4804 of 2019
With
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr – Appellant
Versus
Shivashray Rai & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition(C)No.373 of 2019
With
State Of U.P. – Petitioners
Versus
Shivashray Rai & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition(C)No.386 of 2019
Decided on : 10-02-2020
(a) Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 - Section 15, 15(1), 8 and 92 - Functions of the Board - Conditions of the service of the employees not included in functions of the Board in section 15 - As per section 15(1) provisions of section 15 are “subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations” and therefore not exhaustive - Section 8 confers power on the Board to appoint officers and servants - This power impliedly includes power of laying down the conditions of service - Board’s functions also include section 95 - Words “purpose of this Act” in section 92 are vide enough encompassing appointment of officers and staff of the Board - It cannot be said that the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue directions regarding service conditions of employees of the Board - Section 94 provides that State can make rules on any matter for which board is empowered to make regulations - Further, by virtue of section 95(2) rules made by State has overriding effect - There is no lack of jurisdiction in the State regarding service conditions of the officers and the servants of the Board - Preetam Singh was decided without referring to Section 8, Section 95(1)(f), 92, 94 - Preetam Singh needs reconsideration. (Para 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 43)
(b) Constitution of India - Entry 41 List 5 of the VIIth Schedule and Article 162 - Rule making for service conditions of the officers and the servants of the Board - Legislature having legislative competence - State having power to issue executive order. (Para 37, 41)
Facts of the case:
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (the Board) in the year 1973 has framed Regulations for providing contributory provident fund to its employees. On 21.02.1995, the Board proposed a pension/family pension and gratuity scheme in place of the contributory provident fund scheme for its employees. The State Government sent a reply to the proposal on 16.05.1996 that the State Government has no objection in implementing the pension/family pension and gratuity scheme for its employees, however, it will not extend any financial assistance to the Board for the scheme. The Board on 05.11.1997 framed for pension/family pension and gratuity for its employees in place of earlier contributory provident fund scheme. The State Government vide letter dated 26.11.1997 stayed the implementation of pension scheme. The State issued an order dated 14.04.1999 for implementation of pension/family pension and gratuity scheme in place of contributory provident fund scheme in Board with several conditions enumerated therein. On 13.09.2005 the State Government again stayed the implementation of the pension/family pension and gratuity scheme in place of contributory provident fund scheme in the Board. Again on 12.07.2007, another order was passed to the effect that there is no need to apply pension/provident fund scheme to those personnel of the Public enterprises/Corporations who are covered by Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 of the Central Government and/or those to whom different Contributory Provident Fund Schemes are already applicable. Writ Petition (Preetam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed in the High Court challenging order dated 14.09.1999, 13.09.2005 and 12.07.2007. The High Court vide its judgment 16.01.2009 allowed the writ petition.
Civil appeal thereagainst was dismissed by vide (2014) 15 SCC 774.
In the Government order dated 15.09.2011 it was clarified that arrears of revised pay for the period from 01.01.2006 to 13.01.2010 as per 7 UP Pay commission recommendations shall not be admissible to the Board employees. The State Government issued another letter dated 05.05.2015 regarding pensionary benefits to the employees of the Board in compliance of the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by this Court in Preetam Singh’s case. The Board issued a consequential order dated 05.05.2015.
Two writ petitions were filed and both were allowed by a Division Bench of High Court.
Supreme Court held in Preetam Singh that it is open to the State Government to issue directions on question of policy to all the Public Corporations in the State of Uttar Pradesh but the directions could only be issued in respect of questions of policy having a nexus to the “discharge of its functions” and “the conditions of service of employees do not constitute the functions of the Vikas Parishad”.
The only question in this case is as to whether judgment of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Preetam Singh, (2014)15 SCC 774, requires reference to a larger Bench or not.
Finding of the Court:
Preetam Singh needs reconsideration.
Result: Matter referred to larger Bench.
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
We have heard Shri Raghvendra Singh, learned Advocate-General of State of U.P. for State of U.P. Shri Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel has appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri P.K. Jain, learned counsel has also appeared for respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed their submissions only on the question as to whether judgment of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Preetam Singh, (2014)15 SCC 774, requires reference to a larger Bench or not.
3. Before we consider the submissions of respective parties, it is necessary to notice the subject matter of the dispute which was decided by this Court in Preetam Singh’s case (supra). We also need to notice the facts and issues which have arisen in these Special Leave Petitions.
Preetam Singh’s case
4. The State Legislature passed an Act to provide for the establishment, incorporation and functioning of a housing and development board in Uttar Pradesh, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. (hereinafter referred to as the “1965 Act”). Section 3 provides that the State Government shall by notification in the Gazette establish a Board to be called the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as “the Board or Parishad”). The Board was contemplated to be a body corporate.
5. The Board in the year 1973 has framed Regulations for providing contributory provident fund to its employees. On 21.02.1995, the Board proposed a pension/family pension and gratuity scheme in place of the contributory provident fund scheme for its employees. The State Government sent a reply to the proposal on 16.05.1996 that the State Government has no objection in implementing the pension/family pension and gratuity scheme for its employees, however, it will not extend any financial assistance to the Board for the scheme. The Board on 05.11.1997 framed Regulations under Section 95 of the Act, 1965 for pension/family pension and gratuity for its employees in place of earlier contributory provident fund scheme. The State Government vide letter dated 26.11.1997 directed for staying the implementation of pension scheme. The State vide letter dated 26.11.1997 directed for staying the implementation of pension scheme.
6. The State issued an order dated 14.04.1999 for implementation of pension/family pension and gratuity scheme in place of contributory provident fund scheme in Board with several conditions enumerated therein. On 13.09.2005 the State Government again issued an order intimating the Board that it has been decided to stay the State Government’s earlier order dated 07.05.2003 which was issued for implementation of the pension/family pension and gratuity scheme in place of contributory provident fund scheme in the Board. Again on 12.07.2007, another order was passed to the effect that there is no need to apply pension/provident fund scheme to those personnel of the Public enterprises/Corporations who are covered by Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 of the Central Government and/or those to whom different Contributory Provident Fund Schemes are already applicable. The Writ Petition No.582(S/B) of 2000 (Preetam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench challenging order dated 14.09.1999, 13.09.2005 and 12.07.2007. The writ petition was contested by the State of U.P. The High Court vide its judgment 16.01.2009 allowed the writ petition by the following order:
“For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.09.2005 copy of which is Annexure – 14 and the order dated 12.07.2007, copy of which is Annexure – 18 on the record, are hereby quashed, so far as they relate to U.P. Evam Avas Vikas Parishad. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad to implement its pension/family pension and gratuity scheme in accordance with its regu
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
