The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of UP Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2020). This case, along with several connected appeals, revolved around the pension claims of former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, which was a temporary department of the State Government before being absorbed into the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation (UPSRTC).
Important Legal Issues
The central legal issue in this case was whether the appellants, former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, were entitled to pension benefits. The appellants argued that they should be considered as holding pensionable posts based on various government orders and amendments to the U.P. Civil Service Regulations.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, in judgment delivered by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had previously ruled that the appellants did not hold pensionable posts and were therefore not entitled to pension benefits.
Key Observations of the Court
1. Service Conditions and Pension Eligibility: The Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Roadways was created as a temporary department in 1947, and its employees were appointed on a temporary basis. A Government Order dated September 16, 1960, provided service conditions for these employees, but only certain categories of employees were deemed to hold pensionable posts.
2. Article 350 of U.P. Civil Service Regulations: The Court highlighted that despite amendments to Article 350, Note 3 of the Article, which excludes non-gazetted posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions from pension eligibility, remained unchanged. Since the Roadways was considered a technical institution, the appellants were not entitled to pension.
3. Previous Judgments and Precedents: The appellants relied on earlier judgments of the Allahabad High Court, including U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Mirza Athar Beg, The Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C vs. S.M. Fazil & 03 others, and U.P.S.R.T.C & Ors. vs. Shri Narain Pandey. However, the Supreme Court distinguished these cases, noting that the appellants in those cases were found to be holding permanent posts, which was not the situation for the current appellants.
4. Appropriation and Reprobation: The Court observed that the appellants had already received their post-retiral benefits under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and could not now claim pension benefits. The principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate was applied, referencing cases like National Council of Educational Research and Training vs. Shyam Babu Maheshwari & Ors. and Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India.
Also Read
Lawyers
The appellants were represented by senior counsel, while the respondents, including the State of U.P. and UPSRTC, were represented by Ms. Garima Prasad, senior counsel.
