The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment in the case of UP Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association vs. State of UP & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2020). This case, along with several related appeals, centered on the pension claims of former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, a temporary state government department later integrated into the UP State Roadways Transport Corporation (UPSRTC).
Key Legal Issues
The main legal issue was whether the former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways were entitled to pension benefits. The appellants argued that, based on various government orders and amendments to the U.P. Civil Service Regulations, they should be considered as holding pensionable posts.
Court's Decision
The Supreme Court, with Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Hrishikesh Roy delivering the judgment, dismissed the appeals and upheld the decisions of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had previously ruled that the appellants did not hold pensionable posts and were not entitled to pension benefits.
Key Observations
1. Service Conditions and Pension Eligibility: The Court noted that Uttar Pradesh Roadways was created as a temporary department in 1947, and its employees were appointed on a temporary basis. A Government Order from September 16, 1960, set service conditions, but only certain categories of employees were deemed to hold pensionable posts.
2. Article 350 of U.P. Civil Service Regulations: 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 Roadways was considered a technical institution, the appellants were not entitled to pension.
3. Previous Judgments and Precedents: The appellants cited earlier judgments of the Allahabad High Court, including U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Mirza Athar Beg, The Managing Director, UPSRTC vs. S.M. Fazil & Others, and UPSRTC & Ors. vs. Shri Narain Pandey. However, the Supreme Court distinguished these cases, noting that the appellants in those cases held permanent posts, unlike the current appellants.
4. Appropriation and Reprobation: The Court observed that the appellants had already received their post-retirement 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.
In summary, the Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the importance of adhering to established regulations and precedents when determining pension eligibility, emphasizing that temporary posts and previously received benefits can affect pension claims.
AdvoTalks: Talk to Lawyer https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
