Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW)
RAJAN ROY, J.
Anurag Saxena & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru Its Chairman Lko. & Ors. - Respondents
Writ - A No. 2001796 of 2015
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Pensionary Rules - Applicability to Trainee Engineers - Act 1999, Section 23(7)(c), Transfer Scheme - The court discussed the applicability of pensionary rules to trainee engineers appointed under the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 and the subsequent transfer scheme. It highlighted the provisions of the Act 1999 and the transfer scheme, emphasizing that the trainee appointment was not a substantive appointment and the subsequent rules and decisions were valid and binding on the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for selection and appointment as Assistant Engineer Trainee (E&M) and Junior Engineer Trainee (E&M) in the U.P. State Electricity Board. The Board ceased to exist, and its successor UPPCL came into existence before the result of the selection was declared. The petitioners were appointed as Trainee Engineers and were subsequently substantively appointed in the cadre of service of UPPCL.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment as a Trainee Engineer was not a substantive appointment, and the subsequent decisions and rules made by UPPCL were valid and binding on the petitioners. It held that the petitioners did not have an enforceable right to claim the benefit of the earlier pension scheme or rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of pensionary rules to trainee engineers, the validity of subsequent decisions and rules made by UPPCL, and the enforceability of the petitioners' claim for the benefit of the earlier pension scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the appointment as a Trainee Engineer was not a substantive appointment and that the subsequent rules and decisions made by UPPCL were valid and binding on the petitioners. It also highlighted that the petitioners did not have an enforceable right to claim the benefit of the earlier pension scheme or rules.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Madhusudan Srivastava and Mr. Anupras Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties.
2. This petition was initially filed by eight petitioners, however, subsequently petitioners no. 5, 6, 7 and 8 have withdrawn their writ petitions as permitted vide order dated 24.11.2015 passed by this Court, therefore, the petition survives only in respect of petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that an advertisement bearing No. 3/Vidyut Sewa Ayog/98 was issued by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Service Commission inviting applications for selection and appointment as Assistant Engineer Trainee (E&M) and Junior Engineer Trainee (E&M) in the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as 'Board'). The petitioners applied in pursuance to the said advertisement and appeared in the selection. The result of the selection was declared on 19.12.2000 and 30.12.2000, but, prior to it, on 23.06.1999, an Act known as U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1999') was published in the U.P. Gazette after receiving the assent of the President on 23.06.1999. As per Section 1(3) of the Act 1999, it was to come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint in this behalf. The appointed date, as per the subsequent notification, is 14.01.2000. By means of the Act 1999, U.P. Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'UPPCL') was formed which was to be legal successor of the Board in relation to all power purchase and transmission agreements entered into by the Board with generating and transmitting companies including those owned and controlled by the Central Government.
4. The advertisement No. 3/Vidyut Sewa Ayog/98 was issued when the Board was in existence and the UPPCL was not in existence but when result of the selection was declared, the Board had ceased to exist and its successor UPPCL had come into existence.
5. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 were appointed as Junior Engineer Trainee (E&M) whereas petitioners no. 3 and 4 were appointed as Assistant Engineer Trainee (E&M) vide orders dated 30.12.2000 issued by UPPCL, copy of which is on record. In pursuance to the appointment orders dated 30.12.2000, the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 joined on 30.04.2001, 24.01.2001, 18.01.2001 and 23.01.2001 as Trainee Junior Engineers and Trainee Assistant Engineers. Petitioners were substantively appointed in the cadre of service of UPPCL on 06.03.2002. Now, in terms of Section 23 of the Act 1999 a transfer scheme was framed by the Stated Government and issued on 14.01.2000. This transfer scheme inter alia dealt with transfer of personnel of erstwhile Board to UPPCL. Petitioners were never appointed under the Board.
6. On 03.02.2000, UPPCL issued an Office Memorandum adopting some Rules and Regulations as were applicable in the Board. This included the U.P. Electricity Board Services of Engineers Regulations, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations of 1970') as also pensionary and G.P.F. Rules adopted by the Board. These were to remain in operation till the UPPCL frames its own regulations.
7. It is not out of place to mention that the Act 1999 does not provide for framing of any Regulations by the UPPCL as regards conditions of service of the employees. Such Regulations are, however, framed by the Board of UPPCL under the provisions contained in the Articles and Memorandum of Association as it is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act.
8. At this very stage it needs to be mentioned that Regulations of 1970 were in force for the purposes of selection and appointment of personnel, including the petitioners, in view of the Office Memo dated 03.02.2000 as there were no other Rules applicable nor any such Rules had been framed by UPPCL.
9. At this very stage, it also needs to be m
AI
The appointment as a Trainee Engineer was not a substantive appointment, and subsequent rules and decisions made by UPPCL were valid and binding on the petitioners.
Point of law: Service Law - Teaching and non teaching staff - Grant old pension Scheme - Rule 19 of Rules of 1978 is applicable for the payment of provident fund to teachers and head masters employed....
Employment and Service matter - Payment of provident fund - New Pension Scheme - Enforcement of - Under impugned order making applicable NPS being institutions brought within the purview of Payment o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to be governed by a pension scheme is determined by the date of commencement of the recruitment process, and delay in appointment du....
Services rendered as muster roll employees are eligible for pension benefits under U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, regardless of subsequent regularization dates.
The date of appointment, rather than joining, determines entitlement to pension schemes; rights crystallized before policy changes must be honored.
Autonomous bodies adopting Central NPS must apply OM dated 03.03.2023, granting old pension option to employees from pre-22.12.2003 advertisements despite post-01.01.2004 joining.
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
