Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a batch of special leave petitions arising from writ petitions filed by employees of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (the Board) seeking implementation of pensionary benefits based on the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations. The core issue was whether the judgment in State of U.P. vs. Preetam Singh, (2014)15 SCC 774, which upheld the Board's pension regulations and quashed State orders staying implementation, required reference to a larger Bench. The State argued that Preetam Singh erroneously held that conditions of service are not functions of the Board, thereby limiting the State's supervisory power under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The Court, after hearing submissions, found no conflict or error in Preetam Singh and held that it was a binding precedent. The Court noted that the Board had framed pension regulations under Section 95 of the Act, and the State's directions to stay implementation were beyond its jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the reference request and directed that the matters be listed before the appropriate Bench for final disposal on merits. The judgment reaffirmed that the Board's employees are entitled to pension as per the regulations, and the State cannot interfere with conditions of service settled by the Board.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension Scheme - Binding Precedent - Reference to Larger Bench - The issue was whether the judgment in Preetam Singh requires reference to a larger Bench - The Court held that the judgment in Preetam Singh is binding and does not require reference - The State's contention that the judgment overlooked the distinction between conditions of service and functions of the Board was rejected - Held that the judgment correctly held that conditions of service do not constitute functions of the Board and the State has no jurisdiction to issue directions regarding pension scheme (Paras 2-3, 7, 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Preetam Singh, (2014)15 SCC 774 requires reference to a larger Bench.
Final Decision
The Court held that the judgment in Preetam Singh does not require reference to a larger Bench. The matters are to be listed before the appropriate Bench for final disposal on merits.
Law Points
- Reference to larger bench
- Binding precedent
- Pension scheme
- Conditions of service
- Functions of Board
- State's jurisdiction
- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam
- 1965
Case Details
2020 LawText (SC) (2) 108
SLP(C) Nos. 4802-4803 of 2019, 4815 of 2019, 4804 of 2019, 373 of 2019, 386 of 2019
Raghvendra Singh, Nikhil Majithia, P.K. Jain
State of U.P. & Ors.; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr.
Virendra Kumar & Ors.; Chandra Pal Singh & Ors.; Shivashray Rai & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against High Court judgment directing implementation of pension scheme for Board employees.
Remedy Sought
Employees sought mandamus for re-determination of salary and pensionary benefits based on Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.
Filing Reason
State and Board challenged High Court orders directing implementation of pension scheme and pay revision.
Previous Decisions
High Court allowed writ petitions quashing State orders and directing implementation of pension regulations; Supreme Court in Preetam Singh upheld the High Court judgment.
Issues
Whether the judgment in Preetam Singh requires reference to a larger Bench.
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that Preetam Singh overlooked the distinction between conditions of service and functions of the Board, and that the State has supervisory power under the Act.
Respondents argued that Preetam Singh is binding and correctly held that conditions of service are not functions of the Board.
Ratio Decidendi
The judgment in Preetam Singh is a binding precedent and does not require reference to a larger Bench. Conditions of service of employees do not constitute functions of the Board, and the State has no jurisdiction to issue directions regarding pension scheme.
Judgment Excerpts
We have heard Shri Raghvendra Singh, learned Advocate-General of State of U.P. for State of U.P. Shri Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel has appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri P.K. Jain, learned counsel has also appeared for respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties have addressed their submissions only on the question as to whether judgment of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Preetam Singh, (2014)15 SCC 774, requires reference to a larger Bench or not.
Procedural History
Writ petitions filed in High Court by employees of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad seeking implementation of pension scheme and pay revision. High Court allowed the petitions. State and Board filed special leave petitions in Supreme Court. During hearing, parties confined submissions to whether Preetam Singh requires reference to larger Bench. Court held no reference needed and directed listing for final disposal.
Acts & Sections
- Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965: Section 3, Section 95, Section 95(1)(f)
- Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952:
