Back
2025 Supreme(UK) 48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, ALOK MAHRA, JJ.
Tarkendra Vaishnav and another - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another - Respondent
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.259 OF 2019
Decided on : 25-08-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Pensions and Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Interpretation of Rules - Application of pension rules to post superannuation roles must ensure benefits are reflective of actual service rendered and rules should not deprive retirees unjustly. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners retired from respective posts prior to service in Cooperative Tribunal and claimed entitlement to revised pension as per current rules, which the government contested based on interpretation of relevant provisions.
Findings of Court:
The Court established that petitioners are entitled to revised pension and benefits as mandated by the relevant rules upon recalculation based on their Tribunal service.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around whether the rules applied to those who were reappointed post-superannuation and the nature of recompense due for service as Tribunal Members.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the relevant rules explicitly provide for recalculation of pension benefits and that prior superannuation does not exclude entitlement to post retiral revisions for Tribunal service.
Result: Writ petition stands ordered accordingly.
For the petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. government argues rules apply only pre-superannuation. (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. petitioners' service records govern pension rights. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court determines entitlement based on cooperative rules. (Para 8) |
| 4. recalculation of pension for tribunal service mandated. (Para 9) |
| 5. writ petition is granted. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mahra, J.
1.By means of this writ petition, the petitioners seek a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to revise all their post retiral benefits.
2. According to the petitioners, petitioner no.1 was superannuated from the services of I.A.S. on 31.10.2008; while, petitioner no.2 superannuated from the post of Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on 30.11.2010; that, since the petitioners possess all requisite qualification for being appointed as Member in Uttarakhand Cooperative Tribunal, hence, on 26.10.2010, the petitioner no.1 was appointed as Member in Uttarakhand Cooperative Tribunal, while petitioner no.2 was also appointed on the said post on 07.01.2011; that, petitioners discharged their services and completed their tenure upto the age of 66 years and, as such, petitioner no.1 retired on 30.10.2014 and petitioner no.2 retired on 30.11.2016.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present petition is that the Members of the Cooperative Tribunal are entitled to pension and gratuity and that the pension, gratuity and other post retiral benefits have to be revised/refixed in accordance with the services as the Member of the Cooperative Tribunal, inasmuch as, the petitioners in capacity of I.A.S. and Additional Registrar respectively have already received the gratuity, pensions and other benefits, but the same was not taken into consideration.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon proviso (ii) of Rule 271 of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 , which reads as under:-
(ii) on his retirement from the post of the Chairman or Members in accordance with Rule 273 be entitled to additional pension, gratuity and post-retirement leave encashment which shall be calculated as follows:-
(1) the amounts shall be recalculated according on the date of such to the rules applicable retirement as if he had never retired from his parent extended; service and his service such had stood
(2) the amounts already paid to him under clause (i) on retirement from his parent service, shall be deducted and the difference shall be payable to him.
5. Reference has also been made to proviso (4) of Rule 272 of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 , which ordains that every person appointed to the Tribunal as the Chairman or a Member shall be entitled to pension and gratuity as per rules applicable to Group 'A' Officer of the State Government. When the pension of the petitioners was not recalculated after their superannuation as Members of the Cooperative Tribunal, they moved representations to the Competent Authority. The said representations were forwarded by the Chairman of the Cooperative Tribunal to the State Government with a recommendation to revise the post retiral benefits of the petitioners; that, thereafter, the matter was referred to the Finance Department. The Finance Department, Government of Uttarakhand considered the claim of the petitioners and came to the conclusion that Rules made in this regard in Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 are pari-materia to Rule 253/254(4) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules and did not dispute the entitlement of the petitioners, however, the Finance Department has given its opinion that the Rules need to be amended.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Rules 271, 272 & 273 of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Rules 2004 have not been amended so far. He would further submit that, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Members, who superannuated from the Cooperative Tribunal, their pension has been revised as per provisions contained in Rule 253 and 254 of U.P. Coope
