Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3433 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Sri Keshav Dev Sharma

2010-11-08

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, VEDPAL

body2010
By The Court—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.2. The claimant respondents had claimed retiral benefits along with interest @ 18 per cent on the ground that they are entitled for post retiral benefits/pension under the Rules.3. In brief, the claimant respondents Keshave Dev Sharma initially appointed as Munshi Clerk in Central Dairy Farm, Aligarh on 23.6.1955 and he was transferred to U.P. Pashudhan Udyog Nigam on 14.5.1975. In the year 1992 he was promoted on the post of Assistant Marketing officer. After completion of 60 years of servicesýÿ he retired on 31.3.1992.4. The other claimant Shri Ajit Kumar Jain was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-typist in the U.P. Government Central Dairy Farm on 14.4.1962 and promoted as Head Clerk in the year 1965 and as Accounts clerk in 1966. He was further promoted as Junior Auditor on 3.2.1972. In the year 1975 he was transferred to U.P. Pashudhan Udyog Nigam by a Government order dated 14.5.1975. In the year 1978 he was promoted as Accountant and as Assistant Accounts officer in 1985 and retired on 31.7.1995.5. The grievance of both the claimant respondents is that they have not paid retiral benefit admissible under Rules but they have given only Employees Provident Fund as well as gratuity to the limited extent.6. The tribunal while dealing with the controversy observed that since claimant respondents has served more than 10 years of services hence they shall be entitled for regular pension under CCS Rules which has got statutory force. It has been observed by the Tribunal that statutory rights flowing in favour of claimant respondents shall not be extinguished even if they have been transferred to Nigam. Though the claimant respondents were entitled for payment of pension but since they have joined at the transferred place i.e. in the Nigam the payment of pension shall be deferred and only after retirement from service the claimant respondent could have been given pension.7. The tribunal further held that a question of admissibility of pension like payment of pension and gratuity arises only when employees put 10 year’s of services as required under rules. The claimant respondent had served for more than 10 years hence they were eligible for payment of pension in terms of rules. It has been held by the Tribunal that statutory rules shall not extinguished unless it is prohibited by law. The claimant respondent had served for more than 10 years hence they were eligible for payment of pension in terms of rules. It has been held by the Tribunal that statutory rules shall not extinguished unless it is prohibited by law. Observation of Tribunal is that since claimant respondents were transferred to Nigam the services rendered in the government department for more than 10 years in the present case for more than 13 years shall not extinguish and claimant shall be entitled for payment of regular pension.8. So far as merit of the case is concerned it does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality. One of the argument advanced by learned Chief Standing counsel is that the controversy should have been adjudicated by a Division Bench and not by the Single Judge of the Tribunal. Attention of this court has been invited towards Sub-section 5 to Section 4A of The U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 with regard to constitution of Division Bench for the matter referred in schedule was incorporated w.e.f. 19.9.1999. Hence at the face of record it seems to be prospective in nature. In the present case tribunal had rendered its judgment on 14.5.1999 much earlier than the statutory amendment done in Section 4 A of the Act. Accordingly, the submission of learned Standing counsel with regard to jurisdiction of the single member seems to be not sustainable.9. However, so far as payment of interest is concerned we are of the view that since petitioner was not at fault in delayed payment of pension and cost of employment of the respondents in the Nigam the interest and damages by the Tribunal seems to be not sustainable and unjustified. Accordingly, to the limited extent the tribunal’s judgement requires modification.10. In view of above, we allow the writ petition in part and while affirming the impugned judgement dated 14.5.1999 on merit we modify the judgment to the extent it relates to payment of interest and damages is concerned. The claimants shall be entitled for pensionary benefit being qualified for the purpose under the Rules in terms of tribunal’s judgement without any interest damages unless entire regular pension is paid within two months from today. The claimants shall be entitled for pensionary benefit being qualified for the purpose under the Rules in terms of tribunal’s judgement without any interest damages unless entire regular pension is paid within two months from today. However in the event of default of payment of dues within two months from today the claimant respondents shall be entitled for interest @ of 10 per cent till the amount actually paid.(Petition allowed)_____________