Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others – Appellants
Versus
Shubhash Chandra Gautam and Another – Respondents
Special Appeal Nos. 177, 178, 183 of 2019
Decided On : 26-08-2021
Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 - Section 3 - Quash - Benefit of pension - Petition were allowed orders whereby benefit of departmental pension to petitioners of said writ petition was denied have been quashed and a portion of circular issued by Corporation sofar as it excludes employees getting benefit of pension EPF Pension Scheme from being paid departmental pension has also been quashed –Held, Court to a paragraph mentioned by Hon’ble Single Judge it has been stated that it was never an admitted that petitioners were entitled to get regular departmental pension said paragraph court are afraid has not been read by appellant in conjunction with discussions made in rest of judgment and accordingly no flaw worth name can be found therein case it is observed that there cannot be any dispute as regards ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in said case that dependent on situation even pension retirees may not necessarily form a homogeneous class however of present case are that though State Government while issuing Government Order did not differentiate between two separate groups of employees but it only Corporation which created a separate class of employees who were paid pension form EPF Pension scheme - As already observed above it was not open to Corporation to have deviated from what has been provided by State Government in its order and thus reliance placed by counsel for appellant on case Kumar (supra) does not come to rescue of appellant – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. These special appeals filed by the appellant-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) raise similar questions of law and facts and are therefore being decided by the common judgment, which follows as under:
In Special Appeal No. 183 of 2019, the order under challenge has been passed by learned Single Judge, dated 22.02.2019 whereby the Writ Petition No. 1530 (SS) of 2014 has been allowed and the benefits made available to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 385 (SB) of 2014 and 728 (SB) of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 22.02.2019 have been extended to the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1530 (SS) of 2014 as well.
2. We have heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra along with Shri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel representing the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Shri Gaus Beg, learned counsel representing the respondents (who shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners for convenience) in all the special appeals and have also perused the record available before us.
3. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was established on 01.06.1972 under Section 3 of Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act) and has accordingly been incorporated as a body corporate having its own perpetual succession and a common seal. Prior to incorporation of the Corporation, in the State of U.P. Public Transport was being taken care of by a government department which was commonly known as U.P. Government Roadways Organization. On establishment and incorporation of the Corporation under Section 3 of the Act, 1950 in the State of Uttar Pradesh, under a government arrangement the assets, liabilities and even the employees working in the erstwhile Government Roadways Organization were transferred to the newly established Transport Corporation.
4. All the employees working in the Government Roadways Organization were required to submit their options, if they wanted their services to be transferred to and subsequently absorbed in the newly created Corporation. That is how initially the human resource in the newly established Corporation was inducted/created.
5. By means of a Government Order dated 05.07.1972, it was also provided that service conditions of the employees working in Government Roadways Organization, who gave their options for being absorbed in the services of the Corporation, would not in any manner be inferior to the service conditions, which they had enjoyed while working in the Government Roadways Organization. However, for governing the condition of service of the employees of the Corporation no service rules or regulations were framed prior to framing of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, which were notified on 19.06.1981. The concept of retirement benefits was accordingly
Pension entitlement derives from clearly established regulations, and claims based on superseded orders are invalid, reinforcing that pension is a right subject to existing service conditions.
(1) 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 rele....
Employees directly recruited by a corporation under non-pensionable regulations are not entitled to pensionary benefits, even if they claim parity with employees of a predecessor government entity wh....
The power to regulate conditions of service under the Act is legislative in nature, allowing unilateral modification without employee consent or fair hearing.
Employees of government transport undertaking opting for corporation service while retaining pensionary benefits are deemed corporation employees and governed by corporation rules for pay, allowances....
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
