Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Prabhu Narain & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 500 of 2000
Decided On : 12-03-2003
PENSIONARY BENEFITS - Work-charged Employees - Para 1669 of Financial Hand Book, Article 361 and 370 of Civil Services regulations - The court discussed the provisions of para 1669 of Financial Hand Book, Article 361 and 370 of Civil Services regulations and held that work-charged employees are not entitled to pensionary benefits under these provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, work-charged employees, sought regularisation of their services and pensionary benefits after attaining superannuation. The respondents resisted the claim, stating that work-charged employees are not entitled to pensionary benefits under para 1669 of Financial Hand Book, Article 361 and 370 of Civil Services regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to show the basis for their claim of pension and that their services had not been regularised. It held that without regularisation of services, the petitioners cannot claim pensionary benefits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of work-charged employees to pensionary benefits and the regularisation of their services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that pension is a valuable right given to an employee, but it must be shown that the employee is entitled to pension under a particular Rule or Scheme. Without regularisation of services, the claim for pensionary benefits cannot be upheld.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The entitlement to pensionary benefits is contingent upon the regularisation of services. Employees must demonstrate their entitlement under specific Rules or Schemes to claim such benefits (!) (!) .
The petitioners, who are work-charged employees, sought regularisation of their services and pension benefits after attaining superannuation. The respondents argued that work-charged employees are not entitled to pension benefits under the applicable regulations (!) (!) .
The court held that without regularisation of services, employees cannot claim pensionary benefits. The claim for pension must be supported by a clear basis under relevant Rules or Schemes, which the petitioners failed to establish (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that pension is a valuable right but must be granted in accordance with the Rules or Schemes under which the employee is entitled. The absence of regularisation and lack of specific Rule-based entitlement led to the dismissal of the petition (!) (!) .
The respondents pointed out that a significant number of employees had already been regularised following prior directions and that the petitioners did not specify the Rules under which they claimed pension benefits (!) (!) .
The court noted that the petitioners did not provide details or particulars about the basis of their pension claims or the Rules under which they are entitled. Without proof of entitlement under a specific Rule, the claim for pension could not be upheld (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the writ petition, reaffirming that unless the services are regularised and the entitlement under a specific Rule or Scheme is established, pension claims cannot be granted (!) .
In summary, the legal outcome underscores that regularisation of services is a prerequisite for claiming pension benefits, and such benefits can only be granted if the employee demonstrates entitlement under the relevant Rules or Schemes.
JUDGMENT :
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - In this Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have sought for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction and order in the nature of Mandamus inter-alia commanding the respondents to grant the petitioners all the pensionary/retiral benefits consequent upon attaining the age of superannuation and for any other appropriate direction as considered suitable in the given circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioners claim that they had been the work-charged employees of the respondents; they had put in a very long service and attained the age of superannuation. In the light of earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Narain Prasad & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1998) 8 SCC 473] the petitioners claim they were entitled to be regularised in service as they have satisfied all the requirements to come within the scheme approved by this Court. They contend that because the respondents failed to implement the judgment and order afore-mentioned in the letter and spirit, their services were not regularised. Had the respondents followed the directions given in the said judgment, they could have been regularised and consequently, they would have been entitled for grant of pension by taking their length of service into consideration.
3. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit resisting the claim made by the petitioners in the Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit it is pointed out that about 7744 employees were work-charged employees abd 5516 muster roll employees; pursuant to the direction given by this Court and in terms of the schemes, the services of more than 5000 work-charged employees have been regularised since the year 1997 to 2000.
4. In paragraph (D) of the counter affidavit in regard to the pensionary benefits, it is stated thus:-
5. In the said paragraph it is also stated that work-charged employees are entitled for gratuity and the same is being paid to them on their attaining the age of superannuation. It is again pointed out in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that the services of work-charged employees are some what different from the services of the regular employees. The services of the work-charged employees are governed by Financial Handbook Vol. VI paras 458 to 463 and 667 to 669, read with Article 361 and 370 of Civil Services Regulations. In their reply, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners are not entitled for any pensionary benefits.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners strongly contended that having regard to the judgment of this Court in Raj Narain's case afore-mentioned, the petitioners were certainly entitled for regularisation of their services having regard to the length of their services and taking note that they had satisfied the requirement of the scheme; merely because the respondent slept over or delayed regularis
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
