Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH PADIA, J.
Ram Jatan Tiwari and others - Appellants
Versus
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66755 of 2013
Decided on : 09-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Awadhesh Kumar Sharma, Abhishek Tiwari, Brahma Nand Tripathi, Prashant Kumar Tripathi, Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay, Sharda Vishwakarma and Vineet Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: Ayank Mishra, Abhishek Srivastava, Adarsh Bhushan, S.C., Shrawan Kumar Tripathi and Devesh Vikram

Services rendered as muster roll employees are eligible for pension benefits under U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, regardless of subsequent regularization dates.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - Applicability of pension rules to muster roll employees - Petitioners, initially appointed as daily wage workers, were retrenched and later appointed on muster roll, subsequently regularized - Court held that services rendered as muster roll employees count towards pension eligibility. (Paras 8, 10, 36, 37)

(B) Employment Law - Regularization of services - Court emphasized that employees who have served for extended periods should not be denied pension benefits based on arbitrary classifications. (Paras 36, 72)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed in 1977, retrenched, and later appointed on muster roll in 1988. They were regularized in 2005. The dispute arose regarding their pension eligibility under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners' services as muster roll employees should be counted for pension eligibility, directing payment of pension and arrears within three months.

Issues: The main issues were the applicability of pension rules to muster roll employees and the validity of the Board's resolution regarding pension eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the services rendered as muster roll employees are valid for pension eligibility, rejecting arbitrary classifications that deny benefits based on appointment dates.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J. - Heard Sri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Sri Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in both the writ petitions.

2. In both the writ petitions, the facts are similar and the relief prayed for is also identical, as such, both the writ petitions are being decided by common judgment.

3. The facts as stated in writ petition No. 66755 of 2013 are that the writ petitioners who are five in numbers, were initially appointed in Electricity Department of State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1977 on daily rate basis, but subsequently, they were illegally retrenched and finally, they were appointed in muster roll, vide order dated 5.8.1988.

4. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, 1Bankey Lal Chaudhary & Suresh Yadav filed writ petition No. 38466 of 1994 and petitioner Nos. 1, 4 and 5, namely, 1Ram Jatan Tiwari, Ram Ker Sharma & Ram Bharos filed writ petition No. 35012 of 1994, praying for a writ of mandamus to the Electricity department to regularize their services and pay salary, as is being paid to the similarly situated regular employee. In the aforesaid writ petition No. 35012 of 1994, an order dated 2.11.1994 was passed, directing the U.P. State Electricity Board to continue the petitioners in service and pay same salary, which is being paid to the regular employee, provided the petitioners discharge the duty allotted to them. The similar interim order was passed in writ petition No. 38466 of 1994 on 30.11.1994.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner of writ petition No. 66723 of 2013, namely Vijay Bahadur Singh was also appointed in 1977, but was subsequently illegally retrenched, however, he was appointed and permitted to work on muster roll, vide order dated 5.8.1988. The petitioner Vijay Bahadur Singh of writ petition No. 66723 of 2013 has also filed writ petition No. 38466 of 1994, in which similar interim order, as mentioned above, was also passed.

6. In pursuance of the interim order, mentioned above, the petitioners of both the writ petitions were paid salary as was being paid to regular employee of the Electricity Board.

7. The petitioners of both the writ petitions have further stated that since their appointment from 5.8.1988 under muster roll, they have been continuously working till they have been superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation. It is further stated that by an order dated 25.7.2001, the petitioner/Ram Jatan Tiwari, Bankey Lal Chauhan, Ram Pher Singh & Ram Bharose Lal were given regular appointment on temporary basis. The petitioner No. 3. namely Suresh Yadav was given regular appointment on temporary basis by an order dated 19.3.2002. The petitioner of writ petition No. 66723 of 2013, namely Vijay Bahadur Singh was also given regular appointment on temporary basis by an order dated 25.7.2001. It is further stated that subsequently, by an order dated 1.4.2005, the petitioners of both the writ petitions have been regularized as Shramik. These facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit.

8. From the facts stated above, this much is established that the petitioners were given appointment under muster roll by an order dated 5.8.1988. They were being paid regular salary, as was being paid to the regular employee from the year 1994. It is also admitted that initially the petitioners were given regular appointment on temporary basis in 2001 & 2002 and they were made permanent in the year 2005.

9. The appointment/engagement of the petitioners on muster roll was made by the Electricity Board and the provisions of General Provident Fund scheme, U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and New Family Pension Scheme, 1965 was applicable on employee of Electricity Board and the employees of Electricity Board were entitled for benefit of General Provident Fund scheme, U.P. Re