IMPORTANT POINT
Pension – Pension is not a charity or a bounty and an employee is entitled to receive his pension – Where claim relates to a continuing wrong which does not affect rights of third parties, equities can be balanced by restricting arrears for the entitlement which a claimant is held to be eligible for.

JUDGMENT :

Augustine George Masih, J.

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby the respondents were held entitled to pensionary benefits under the "Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana" (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme").

2. Respondents in this case were appointed under the Scheme to different posts between the years 1969 to 1982.

3. The Uttar Pradesh Cane (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979, were applicable to the gazetted officers of the Cane Development Department, which in turn govern the service conditions of the respondents herein and no separate rules have been framed for them. They approached the High Court seeking regular pension on the same rates as were permissible to the permanent employees of the government.

4. The respondents were appointed under the aforesaid Scheme on a temporary basis and were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme. A demand was raised by the employees for payment of gratuity and pension, etc., wherein a decision was taken on 29.09.1997 that the government had no objection to extending the benefit of pension, gratuity, leave travelling concession and Group Insurance Scheme to the employees appointed under the scheme, provided all financial expenses relating to these facilities would be borne by the internal sources of the Scheme. The government would not provide any type of financial assistance or grant-in-aid. A policy decision was also taken by the appointing authority on 12.11.1997 that all the employees and officers under the Scheme would be covered by the service rules, government orders, regulations and bye-laws as applicable from time to time to the equivalent posts of the Cane Development Department. The government further communicated, with reference to the earlier communication dated 29.09.1997, that the facility of gratuity should be extended as per the rules and the facility of Contributory Provident Fund should be continued, reiterating the aspect of managing the expenses from the income of the Scheme. Thereafter, the Sugar Cane Commissioner passed an order clarifying the facilities available to the employees under the Scheme were like the government employees except for the facility of regularization, permanency and pension benefits. A restriction was also imposed upon the age of superannuation to remain at 58 years vide decision dated 29.06.2005. However, the Sugar Cane Commissioner raised the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years for employees working under the Scheme.

5. One Mr. Vinod Kumar Goel preferred a Writ Petition before the Uttarakhand High Court claiming enhancement of his age of superannuation to 60 years in light of the decision of the government as referred to above. This claim was rejected, leading to filing an SLP before this Court, wherein vide order dated 16.04.2004 in Civil Appeal No.2511 of 2004 titled as Vinod Kumar Goel vs. State of Uttaranchal, it was held that he would be entitled to continue till the age of 60 years in light of the order of the Cane Commissioner dated 04.11.1997, which entitled the employees appointed under the Scheme to the same benefits as the government employees in the absence of any separate rules.

He, in the light of above claimed pension which was declined on the ground that he would not be entitled to the said benefit as he did not fulfil the required qualifying service for entitlement for payment of pension under the rules applicable. The employee was also held not entitled to gratuity. Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 348 of 2005 (Vinod Kumar Goel Vs. State of Uttaranchal), in the High Court, vide judgment dated 09.11.2011, the claim was partly allowed, entitling him to payment of gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, he was not held entitled to pension under the rules because of his having less service than the required qualifying service on th