ORDER :

(Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

1. Heard Mr. Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Mayankar Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Corporation’) challenging the judgment and order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal allowing Claim Petition No. 1482 of 2001, which was filed by the respondent claiming payment of pension instead of Employees Provident Fund (E.P.F.).

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed on 22.04.1960 on the post of Cleaner-cum-conductor in the erstwhile U. P. State Roadways. He was promoted to the post of Conductor on 18.06.1961 and his services on the post of Conductor were confirmed on 01.04.1972. Thereafter the Corporation came into being and the petitioner was appointed in it on deputation in terms of a Government Order dated 05.07.1972. On 13.04.1984, the respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and thereafter on 30.06.1989 he was promoted to the post of Traffic Inspector. The respondent retired on 28.02.1994 while he was working on the aforesaid post. The respondent was treated as working on non-pensionable posts and after his retirement, he was paid the E.P.F. amount, along with the employer’s contribution.

4. It was for the first time in the year 2001 that the respondent gave a representation after expiry of a period of seven years since his retirement, claiming payment of pension and thereafter he filed Claim Petition No. 1482 of 2001 before the Tribunal claiming payment of pension. The Corporation filed a written statement disputing the respondent’s claim.

5. The Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition holding that prior to his appointment on deputation in the Corporation, the respondent was working on a pensionable post and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, which post was inter-changeable with the post of Station-in-charge and, therefore, was pensionable. The Tribunal held that by means of a Government Order dated 19.06.1981 it was provided that the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation will not be fixed below the conditions will not be lower than those on which they were working previously. The Tribunal further held that the provision of pension was introduced in the Corporation by means of a Government Order dated 03.02.1994 providing that the employees who had retired and had taken E.P.F. benefit, would be entitled to get pension after repaying the E.P.F. amount. However, no intimation was given to the respondent in terms of the aforesaid G.O. that he had an option to get pension instead of E.P.F. benefit and no option was taken from him. The Tribunal also noted that one Bhagwan Das, who was a black-smith in the Corporation was initially refused pension but subsequently upon a representation made by him, he was given pension. The Tribunal held that the respondent had retired from a pensionable post and he cannot be denied pension merely because he could not exercise his option for want of information. The Tribunal directed the Corporation to pay pension to the respondent after adjusting the amount paid to him as E.P.F.

6. The Corporation has challenged the Tribunal’s Order mainly on the grounds that the respondent was not working on any pensionable post while he was in Government Service and, therefore, he was not entitled to get pension; that the respondent was absorbed in the Corporation in the year 1982, he accepted the terms of appointment in the Corporation under which his service was non-pensionable and till his retirement, he did not raise any objection or claim that his service ought to be made pensionable; that the respondent was entitled to E.P.F. benefit, which benefit had been availed by him upon his retirement in the year 1994 and