Lawtext - Where Words Transform into Power!

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Pension Claims for UPSRTC Employees Not Holding Permanent Pensionable Posts. The Supreme Court upheld the regulations and government orders, denying pension benefits to UPSRTC employees who did not hold permanent pensionable posts, emphasizing adherence to existing rules and addressing delayed claims.

by Admin

Summary of Judgement

This judgment discusses the eligibility of employees of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) for pension benefits, based on various Government Orders (GOs) and regulations. It highlights that employees must have held permanent gazetted or non-gazetted posts before specific dates to qualify for pension. It also covers the impact of the amendments and delays in filing claims, referencing several court cases and legal precedents to support the judgments. Ultimately, it concludes that the appeals lack merit and are dismissed, affirming that certain employees are not entitled to pension benefits due to the nature of their posts and the conditions of their employment.

1. Absorption and Option for Provident Fund or Pension Scheme

Employees absorbed by the Corporation must choose between the Provident Fund Scheme or the Pension Scheme within six months.

Failure to choose defaults to the Provident Fund Scheme.

2. Pension Entitlement and Relevant Regulations

Pension eligibility is based on the regulations applicable to former U.P. Government Roadways Department employees.

Specific rules for absorption and pension entitlements are framed under the Roadways (Abolition of Post and Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1982.

3. Examination of Appellants’ Categories for Pension Claims

First Category: Appointed before 16.09.1960 and retired holding permanent posts.

Second Category: Appointed after 16.09.1960 but before 01.06.1972, holding permanent posts.

Third Category: Appointed after 01.06.1972, not entitled to pension.

4. Impact of Government Orders and Regulations

GOs dated 28.10.1960 and 05.07.1972 determine pension eligibility.

Amendments to Article 350 and Note 3 of the Regulations emphasize non-eligibility for certain non-gazetted posts.

5. Judicial Precedents and Delayed Claims

References to cases like Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar on dismissing delayed claims.

Specific cases (e.g., Mirza Athar Beg, S.M. Fazil) analyzed, showing distinctions in their factual matrix.

6. Conclusions on Pension Claims

Claims are dismissed due to lack of merit.

Distinguishing features of appellants’ cases versus precedents.

Importance of holding a pensionable post as per relevant GOs and regulations.

7. UPSRTC and RKSP Appeals

Analysis of High Court judgments and their implications on pension entitlements.

Clarification of GO provisions regarding deputation and absorption.

8. Final Judgment and Appeal Outcomes

Appeals by UPSRTC are allowed, and appeals by Roadways Karmchari Sanyukta Parishad are dismissed.

Specific civil appeals related to pension claims are dismissed in line with the main judgment.

Case Title: UP ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LawText (SC) (7) 261

Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 894 OF 2020 WITH C.A. No. 896/2020 , C.A. No. 898/2020 , C.A. No. 957/2020 , C.A. Nos. 959-965/2020 , C.A. No. 897/2020 , C.A. No. 895/2020 , C.A. Nos. 899-901/2020 , C.A. No. 910/2020 , C.A. No. 902/2020 , C.A. No. 912/2020 , C.A. No. 909/2020 , C.A. No. 913/2020 , C.A. No. 958/2020 , C.A. No. 915/2020 , C.A. No. 966/2020 , C.A. No. 914/2020 , C.A. No. 832/2020 , C.A. No. 967/2020 , C.A. No. 905/2020 , C.A. No. 907/2020 , C.A. No. 903/2020 , C.A. No. 911/2020 , C.A. No. 904/2020 , C.A. No. 906/2020 , C.A. No. 908/2020 & C.A. No. (s) /2024 @ SLP (c) /2024 @ Diary No. 10240/2020

Date of Decision: 2024-07-26