Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Writ Petition Against Pension Denial – Applicability of Fundamental Rules – Parity With Government Employees – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Eligibility for Gratuity – Service Rules of Cane Development Department.

Pension is a right, not a privilege. Employees governed by the same service rules as government employees are entitled to pension, even if initially covered under CPF. Delay in claiming pension does not bar entitlement due to the doctrine of continuing wrong.

Held –
a. The respondents were covered under fundamental statutory rules, which included pension benefits (Para 14).
b. Judgment in Vinod Kumar Goel’s case was binding precedent, applicable to the present case (Para 16).
c. Doctrine of Continuing Wrong applied – Pension claim not time-barred (Para 19).
d. Pension entitlement granted, but arrears restricted to three years prior to filing the writ petition (Para 20).

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Fundamental Rights of Employees – Right to Pension
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Service Matters
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Entitlement to Gratuity for Temporary Employees

Subjects:

Pension Rights – Temporary Employees – Service Rules Applicability – Continuing Wrong – Contributory Provident Fund – Parity With Government Employees – Judicial Review – Laches – Superannuation Age

Facts:

a. Respondents were appointed under Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana between 1969 to 1982 on a temporary basis and were covered under Contributory Provident Fund (CPF).
b. Government issued various orders between 1997 to 2005, extending benefits like gratuity, leave travel concession, and group insurance, but denied pension.
c. In Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of Uttarakhand (2014), the Supreme Court upheld pension entitlement, prompting respondents to claim similar benefits.
d. The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on 18.05.2016 ruled in favor of respondents, directing pension payments.
e. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the judgment, citing delay, waiver, and estoppel, arguing that temporary employees cannot claim regular pension benefits.

Issues:

a. Whether temporary employees under the Scheme were entitled to pension benefits similar to regular government employees.
b. Whether the respondents’ claim was barred due to delay, waiver, and estoppel after withdrawing CPF benefits.
c. Whether the judgment in Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of Uttarakhand was applicable to respondents employed in Uttar Pradesh.

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellant (State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.) –
a. Delay and Laches – The respondents filed claims after retirement, citing an earlier Supreme Court decision.
b. Temporary Employees – Pension is only for permanent employees unless explicitly granted by rules.
c. Estoppel and Waiver – Respondents already withdrew CPF dues, hence cannot claim pension.

Respondents –
a. Fundamental Rules Applicability – Government applied Cane Development Department rules to respondents, including service conditions.
b. Judgment in Vinod Kumar Goel’s Case – Same benefits should apply since government policies were identical.
c. Continuing Wrong Doctrine – Pension is a recurring benefit, not barred by delay.