SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J
Sandeep Raizada and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Writ A No.6954 of 2019
Decided on : 11-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: A.K. Srivastava, Samir Sharma (Senior Adv.), Sudhir Dixit, Utkarsh Dixit
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Mishra, Vinod Kumar Pandey

Pension entitlement derives from clearly established regulations, and claims based on superseded orders are invalid, reinforcing that pension is a right subject to existing service conditions.

Headnote:(A) Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - Section 3 and Section 34 - Pension entitlement for employees - Petitioners claimed pension under G.O. dated 21.07.1972 after revisions by Regulation; court clarified service terms governed under Regulations, 1998, superseding prior provisions - Financial viability not basis for pension denial as rights derive from laws, not fiscal assessments - Case remitted to Board for resolution of claims. (Paras 12-14, 46-64)

(B) Fundamental principles - Pension is not a bounty but a right; however, entitlement is based on existing rules, which do not favor petitioners here - Court validates decisions made by the Board, emphasizing legal foundations over fiscal implications. (Paras 30-38)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, appointed between 1986-1990 as Assistant Regional Managers, sought pension based on prior and subsequent Government Orders issued concerning their service conditions - The State's directives and Board resolutions failed to reflect appointment conditions formally entitling them to pension, leading to this judicial review.

Findings of Court:
Court determined no specific pension regulations for petitioners existed post-1998, thus denying their claims while highlighting the importance of adhering to established service regulations.

Issues: The key question was whether the petitioners, appointed to newly created posts, were entitled to pension based on older directives, especially in light of new regulations superseding them.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while pension rights are protected, their actual entitlement exists only within frameworks provided by applicable service regulations, which did not favor petitioners after the 1998 regulations were adopted.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. historical employee service conditions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. establishment and evolution of service regulations (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. framework of pension eligibility in governance (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. arguments for pension based on appointment history (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 28)
5. counterarguments against pension eligibility claims (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. court's examination of service conditions and pension rights (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
7. outcome based on existing regulations (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
8. final ruling on pension claims (Para 63 , 64)

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Brief History of Roadways and it’s Employees in State of U.P.

1. In order to consider real controversy involved in present case, it would be necessary to mention few facts about history of roadways in State of Uttar Pradesh and for that the Court takes some details mentioned by Supreme Court in a judgment passed in the case of U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association Versus State of U.P. And Another : (2024) 9 SCC 33 and other relevant facts from pleadings.

2. In 1947, Uttar Pradesh Roadways was created as a temporary department of State Government for providing public transport facilities and its employees were accordingly appointed temporarily.

3. By a Government Order dated 16.09.1960 directions were issued on “Terms and Conditions of Service of Temporary Employees in the U.P. Roadways - Revisions of”. For reference said Government Order is reproduced hereinafter :-

“G.O. No. 3014 D/XXX- 135/59 dated Sept. 16, 1960 Subject: Terms and conditions of service of temporary employees in the U.P. Roadways - Revisions of.

I am directed to say that the question of revising the terms and conditions of service of the Roadways employee, which is a nationalized commercial undertaking and has to work in conditions different from those prevailing in regular government offices, has been under the consideration of Government for some time past.

The passenger and goods services have to run irrespective of the fact whether it is a Sunday or a festival. The schedule of passenger services run by the State Undertaking cannot be altered off an on. In order to keep the Roadways services going the maintenance and repairs of vehicles has to be attend to even at odd hours at the workshops. At present the conditions of service of the employees of the U.P. Government Roadways and the Central Workshop, Kanpur are governed by the various rules and standing orders of Government applicable to other temporary government servants under the rule making powers of the Governor. In view of the special service conditions of employees of the Roadways it seems necessary to evolve a new set of service conditions for its employees which may be compatible with the nature of work and functions of the organization. Accordingly, in super session of all previous orders on the subject, the Governor has been pleased to pass the following orders prescribed revised terms and conditions of service of temporary employees of the U.P. Roadways including those detailed in para 2 below. The revised terms and conditions of service shall be applicable to all future entrants in the Roadways organization and shall be enforced in the manner mentioned hereinafter in the case of temporary employee including those on the work charge strength and paid on monthly basis.

(1) All temporary employees except those referred to in para 2 shall get one day's rest in every period of seven days in accordance with the rules to be framed by Government. In case the employees is deprived of any of the days or rest, he shall be allowed within the same or following month compensation holidays of equal number of the days of rest so lost.

(2) They shall be entitled to get one days paid holidays for every 20 days of work performed by them during the previous calender year, subject to the condition that the employee has worked for a period of 240 days or more dur








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top