IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Ved Prakash Mittal And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 11593 of 2021, with Writ A. No. 9889 of 2021 with Writ A. No. 17099 of 2021 with Writ A. No. 20 of 2020 with Writ A. No. 9820 of 2021 with Writ A. No. 19978 of 2019 with Writ A. No. 11020 of 2021.
Decided On : 27-03-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 and 16 - U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 - Sections 4, 5 , 5-A and 24 - Post retirement benefits - Pension of retirees of Development - Seventh Central Pay Commission - State Government constituted the Pay Committee 2016, to implement Recommendations of Seventh Central Pay Commission in State of Uttar Pradesh - Pay Committee 2016 presented its recommendations/report before State Government with regard to implementation of Seventh Pay Commission upon different classes and categories of employees/retirees of various departments including the Housing and Urban Planning Department and Local Bodies, statutory institutions, public sector enterprises and autonomous bodies like Development Authorities – Held, Retrospective operation of revised pension with effect and arrears to be paid - Court has found nothing on record to show that question of payment of arrears with effect was deliberated upon seriously - It is evident from fact that information in prepared formats continued to be collected by Administrative Department even after issuance of the impugned office memo - Writ petitions stand party allowed
ORDER :
(Sangeeta Chandra, J.)
1. All of the above seven Writ Petitions have been filed by retired members U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services or their dependent family members. They were holding various posts for example Chief Architect and Town Planner, Chief Town Planners, Chief Engineers, Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers in different Development Authorities and had retired before 01.01.2016. Some of the writ petitions which were filed in 2019 and 2020 were filed mainly with a prayer to revise the pension of the petitioners in accordance with the recommendation of the Seventh Pay Commission and strictly in accordance with the Government Order dated 23.12.2016 read with Government Orders dated 18.07.2017 and 04.09.2017 which were issued for State Government employees. Some petitioners were also praying for grant of 20% additional pension to them as they had attained the age of eighty years. Pleadings were complete between the parties and matters were ripe for final hearing but in the meantime the State Government issued Office Memo dated 24.02.2021, which made admissible revised pension to the petitioners in accordance with the Seventh Pay Commission’s recommendations but with effect from the date of issuance of such order i.e. prospectively. Such Office Memo has been challenged in later Writ Petitions of 2021 as it provides that the formula given in Government Order dated 23.12.2016 will be followed while calculating revised pension/family pension only notionally, and actual benefits of revised pension shall be given with effect from 24.02.2021 meaning thereby that the arrears of more than five years have been denied. The impugned Office Memo also denies the benefit of modified formula and method for calculation of pension and family pension as provided in Government Orders dated 18.07.2017 read with Government Order dated 04.09.2017, saying that they were meant only for retired Government Servants and their dependents.
2. The facts that are common to all of the writ petitions are that after recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, the State Government constituted the Pay Committee 2016, to implement the Recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Pay Committee 2016 presented its recommendations/report before the State Government with regard to the implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission upon different classes and categories of employees/retirees of various departments including the Housing and Urban Planning Department and Local Bodies, statutory institutions, public sector enterprises and autonomous bodies like Development Authorities. The State Cabinet accepted the recommendations of the Pay Committee 2016 with regard to revised pay, Dearness Allowance/Relief as well as pension/family pension and other post retirement benefits for Urban Local Bodies, Zila Panchayats, Jal Sansthan and Development Authorities. Consequently, a Government Resolution (Sankalp) dated 16.12.2016 was issued which was published in the Gazette. Clause 1 of such Resolution provided that the recommendations of the Pay Committee with regard to the revision of salaries of employees of Development Authorities in revised Pay Matrix (provided by the Seventh Pay Commission) were accepted. Clause 5 of the said Resolution provided that pension of retirees of Development Authorities who had earlier been getting same pension as Government servants shall be revised in an identical manner to State Government pensioners. It further provided that the financial implications/burden in adopting the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission for Local Bodies, Zila Panchayats, Development Authorities etc., would be borne by such institutions. No transfer of funds other than funds which are already being given by the State Government to such authorities, would be made available for additional financial burden cast by such adoption. With regard to Development Authorities the recom
V. Kasturi versus Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and another
Western Coalfields Ltd Vs. Special Area Development Authority
State of U.P. versus Preetam Singh and others
All Manipur Pensioners Association through its Secretary vs. State of Manipur
Indian Ex-Servicemen’s Movement Vs. Union of India and others
The Odisha Development Authorities (Retirement Benefit of the Employees) Rules, 2015 are declared ultra vires, affirming the right of employees appointed prior to 01.01.2005 to receive pension benefi....
Pension scheme-petitioners having admittedly received the entire CPF amount along with the due interest without any demur or protest, upon their retirement, they cannot be permitted to retract now at....
Pension entitlement is governed by existing rules, and any revisions depend on state policy, not individual claims based on service length.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period spent as a daily wage employee should be counted towards pensionable service if the employee is retiring from an establishment with....
The court upheld the government's policy decision to set a cut-off date for extending monetary benefits to retirees, affirming that such classifications are permissible under constitutional provision....
The statutory force of rules, impermissibility of creating two classes of pensioners, and the discriminatory nature of the classification were the central legal points established in the judgment.
It is a well settled principle of law that statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The rules made under....
Fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.