JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. Brief History of Roadways and it’s Employees in State of U.P. 1. In order to consider real controversy involved in present case, it would be necessary to mention few facts about history of roadways in State of Uttar Pradesh and for that the Court takes some details mentioned by Supreme Court in a judgment passed in the case of U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association Versus State of U.P. And Another : (2024) 9 SCC 33 and other relevant facts from pleadings. 2. In 1947, Uttar Pradesh Roadways was created as a temporary department of State Government for providing public transport facilities and its employees were accordingly appointed temporarily. 3. By a Government Order dated 16.09.1960 directions were issued on “Terms and Conditions of Service of Temporary Employees in the U.P. Roadways - Revisions of”. For reference said Government Order is reproduced hereinafter :- “G.O. No. 3014 D/XXX- 135/59 dated Sept. 16, 1960 Subject: Terms and conditions of service of temporary employees in the U.P. Roadways - Revisions of. I am directed to say that the question of revising the terms and conditions of service of the Roadways employee, which is a nationalized commercial undertaking and has to work in conditions different from those prevailing in regular government offices, has been under the consideration of Government for some time past. The passenger and goods services have to run irrespective of the fact whether it is a Sunday or a festival. The schedule of passenger services run by the State Undertaking cannot be altered off an on. In order to keep the Roadways services going the maintenance and repairs of vehicles has to be attend to even at odd hours at the workshops. At present the conditions of service of the employees of the U.P. Government Roadways and the Central Workshop, Kanpur are governed by the various rules and standing orders of Government applicable to other temporary government servants under the rule making powers of the Governor. In view of the special service conditions of employees of the Roadways it seems necessary to evolve a new set of service conditions for its employees which may be compatible with the nature of work and functions of the organization. In view of the special service conditions of employees of the Roadways it seems necessary to evolve a new set of service conditions for its employees which may be compatible with the nature of work and functions of the organization. Accordingly, in super session of all previous orders on the subject, the Governor has been pleased to pass the following orders prescribed revised terms and conditions of service of temporary employees of the U.P. Roadways including those detailed in para 2 below. The revised terms and conditions of service shall be applicable to all future entrants in the Roadways organization and shall be enforced in the manner mentioned hereinafter in the case of temporary employee including those on the work charge strength and paid on monthly basis. (1) All temporary employees except those referred to in para 2 shall get one day's rest in every period of seven days in accordance with the rules to be framed by Government. In case the employees is deprived of any of the days or rest, he shall be allowed within the same or following month compensation holidays of equal number of the days of rest so lost. (2) They shall be entitled to get one days paid holidays for every 20 days of work performed by them during the previous calender year, subject to the condition that the employee has worked for a period of 240 days or more during the previous calender year. In case the employees is not able to avail of full or part of the leave admissible to him during the calender year, it will be carried over to the following year, subject to a maximum of 30 days. (3) They shall got five days festival holidays in a calender year as prescribed by Government and subject to the rules to be framed for the purpose. (4) They shall be paid extra wages at the rate of twice of ordinary rate of wages in respect of work performed by them beyond the prescribed hours of work. (5) Their services are liable to termination on one month's notice on either side, or one month's pay in lieu thereof. (6) In other respect the conditions of service will remain the same as at present. (5) Their services are liable to termination on one month's notice on either side, or one month's pay in lieu thereof. (6) In other respect the conditions of service will remain the same as at present. The revised terms and conditions of services mentioned in para 1 above shall not apply to the following category of employees:- (a) All employees working in the offices establishment of the Asstt. General Manager, General Manager, Service Manager, Chief Mechanical Engineer, Roadways Central Workshop, Kanpur and the Head Quarter Office of the Transport Commissioner. (b) Supervisory staff of the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side; (c) Technical staff of the rank of Junior Foreman and above on the engineer side; The above three categories of Roadways staff will continue to be treated as regular government servants and will be entitled to the benefits admissible to any other government servant of the same category. 3. The Roadways and Central Workshop employees to whom the revised service rules are being made applicable shall be entitled to the provident fund benefits according to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act. For this necessary orders have already been issued separately in G.O. No. 1488-D/XXX 2198/59 dated July, 29, 1960. Immediate step may please be taken for the implementation of the orders issued in the above G.O. The employees governed by the new terms and conditions of service will continue to get facilities for medical treatment so far enjoyed by them. All future entrants shall also be entitled to facilities for medical treatment admissible to Government servants. The canteen and rest house facilities as may be prescribed by government shall also be made available to them in course of time. 4. These order shall come into force w.e.f. October 1, 1960 and shall apply to all future entrants in the service of the Roadways organization and also the existing temporary employees who accept to continue to work on the revised terms and conditions of service. The status of Roadways employees already made permanent remains unaffected. All the existing temporary employees except those mentioned in para 2 above may be asked to indicate in writing if the new service conditions mentioned above are acceptable to them. Those who accept the new terms and conditions of service will be required to fill in a separate acceptance for which will be kept with their service records. All the existing temporary employees except those mentioned in para 2 above may be asked to indicate in writing if the new service conditions mentioned above are acceptable to them. Those who accept the new terms and conditions of service will be required to fill in a separate acceptance for which will be kept with their service records. If, however, any of the employees do not accept the new terms their services are to be terminated in accordance with the terms of their employment. I am to suggest that the implications of the revised orders may be explained to all concerned by the General Managers and Asstt. General Mangers and Chief Mechanical Engineer and that necessary action may please be intimated forthwith in order to implement the above orders." 4. Subsequently a Government Order dated 28.10.1960 was issued, whereby pension was provided to employees of three categories of Roadways Organization. For reference the same is mentioned hereinafter:- “GO No. 3567-P/XXX-2198/99 dated 28.10.1960 - In continuation of G.O. No. 30140/XXX-135-V/1959 dated 16.9.1960, I am directed to say that the question or declaration the permanent posts in the Roadways Organization (including the Roadways Central Workshop Kanpur) as pensionable has been under consideration of Government for some time past. In this connection, the Governor has been pleased to order that the permanent gazetted and non-gazetted incumbents of the following three categories would be entitled to the contributory 10 Provident Fund cum Pension Rules:- (a) The employees working in the office establishment of the Asstt. General Manager, General Managers, Service Managers, Chief Mechanical Engineer, Roadways Central workshop, Kanpur and the Headquarter office of the Transport Commissioner. (b) Supervisory staff of the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side. (c) Technical staff of the rank of Junior Foreman and above on the Engineering side. 2. The Governor has been further pleased to order, under note 3 Below Article 350 of the Civil Service Regulations that the rest of the permanent non-gazetted Employees both in the traffic and engineering sections of the organization, would be treated as non-pensionable posts referred to above, will be eligible for Provident Fund benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act. 3. I am also to add that Temporary Employment of the categories mentioned in para 1 above will be entitled to Provident fund benefits as provided under the Employees Provident Funds Act. 3. I am also to add that Temporary Employment of the categories mentioned in para 1 above will be entitled to Provident fund benefits as provided under the Employees Provident Funds Act. As and when they became permanent, they will have the option to elect the contributory Provident Fund cum Pension Benefits in lieu of Employees Provident Fund. 4. As regards the grant of Provident Fund Benefits to other temporary and work charges employees of the Roadways organization necessary orders have already been conveyed to you in G.O. No. 14880/XXX-219/59 dated 29.7.1960. Jt. Secy. Copy forwarded under U.P. Parivahan Ayukta (Lekha) U.P. Lucknow endorsement NO. C-935FA/594FA/57 dated 1.11.1960 to all the General Managers, Asstt. General Managers, Service Managers, Accounts Officers and all other concerned for information and necessary action." 5. The Roadways Corporation was constituted under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”) w.e.f. 01.06.1972. Section 3 of the Act, 1950 is mentioned herein after:- “3. Establishment of Road Transport Corporations in the States. -The State Government having regard to-- (a) the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of road transport; (b) the desirability of co-ordinating any form of road transport with any other form of transport; (c) the desirability of extending and improving the facilities for road transport in any area and of providing an efficient and economical system of road transport service therein, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Road Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the Union territory of Delhi under such name as may be specified in the notification.” 6. State Government has issued Government Order dated 29.05.1972 wherein name of existing posts and name of corresponding posts in Corporation were mentioned. Earlier post by the name of Assistant Chief Manager was referred as Assistant Regional Manager in Corporation. In November, 1978 Corporation appointed some persons on newly created posts of Assistant Regional Manager and it is claimed that said posts were pensionable. 7. Earlier post by the name of Assistant Chief Manager was referred as Assistant Regional Manager in Corporation. In November, 1978 Corporation appointed some persons on newly created posts of Assistant Regional Manager and it is claimed that said posts were pensionable. 7. The State of U.P. issued a Government Order dated 07.06.1972, where by all the employees of erstwhile Roadways holding permanent posts as per earlier referred Government Order dated 28.10.1960 were declared entitled for pension, except following five categories of employees: “(i) Those working on daily wages; (ii) Those appointed on ad-hoc basis; (iii) Those who had not completed minimum service period prescribed for the post; (iv) Those holding posts which were not declared pensionable; (v) Those who had been removed from service after departmental inquiry and those had been found guilty of criminal charges.” 8. The State of U.P. issued a Government Order dated 05.07.1972 on a subject “Constitution of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and merger of the Officers/Employees of the Transport Organization”. For reference the same is extracted hereinafter :- “No. 3414/TEES-2-170 N/72 Sender Shri Girija Prasad Pandey Commissioner & Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh To Chief Manager Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Lucknow Dated: Lucknow July 5, 1972 Transport Section-2 Sub: Constitution of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and merger of the officers/employees of the Transport Organisation. Sir, After merger of the officers/employees working under Uttar Pradesh Roadways with State Road Transport Corporation, in connection with merger of services under the Corporation, I have been directed to issue the following, amending the Government order no. 3000/30-2-1 70/72 dated June 7, 1972: (1) According to the provision of para (1) (A) of the above Government order, all those permanent or temporary officers/employees who before the constitution of State Road Transport Corporation were in the services of State Roadways, their services would be considered in the Corporation on deputation. For this deputation no period is being fixed now. (2) The State Road Transport Corporation has under section 45 of the Transport Corporation Act have not made rules about the service conditions till now in connection with the officers and employees under it. Therefore, leaving the above discussed Annexure 1 (1) A of the above Government order dated June 7, 1972, the remaining annexures would be considered dismissed. (2) The State Road Transport Corporation has under section 45 of the Transport Corporation Act have not made rules about the service conditions till now in connection with the officers and employees under it. Therefore, leaving the above discussed Annexure 1 (1) A of the above Government order dated June 7, 1972, the remaining annexures would be considered dismissed. But whenever the Corporation would make rules regarding service conditions, then in them this assurance of the Government would be included that the service condition of the officers/employees under the Corporation in any condition would not be contemptuous than those conditions which were available to them under the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways and their government service period, their seniority under the corporation, promotion, fixation of pay, right concerning leave and financial benefits would be considered in that way only as they would have remained in their being in government service. Yours faithfully (Girija Prasad Pandey) Commissioner & Secretary No. 2114 (1)/Tees-2-170N/72 Copy submitted to Accountant General, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, for information and necessary action. By order, (Bhagwan Swaroop Saxena) Dy. Secretary No. 3414(2)/Tees-2-170N/72 Copy submitted to the following for information: - (1) Transport Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. (2) Finance (Expenditure-7) Section By order, (Bhagwan Swaroop Saxena) Dy. Secretary” 9. The State of U.P. issued a Government Order dated 21.07.1972 under Section 34(1) of Act, 1950 on a subject in regard to selection procedure of posts under Road Transport Corporation. Section 34 of Act, 1950 and contents of Government Order dated 21.07.1972, being much relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present case, are extracted hereinafter:- “34. Directions by the State Government.-(1) The State Government may, after consultation with a Corporation established by such Government, give to the Corporation general instructions to be followed by the Corporation, and such instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment, conditions of service and training of its employees, wages to be paid to the employees, reserves to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks. (2) In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act, the Corporation shall not depart from any general instructions issued under sub-section (1) except with the previous permission of the State Government.” Government Order dated 21.07.1972 10. (2) In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act, the Corporation shall not depart from any general instructions issued under sub-section (1) except with the previous permission of the State Government.” Government Order dated 21.07.1972 10. In exercise of power under Section 45(2)(c) of Act, 1950 the State of U.P. framed U.P. Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 1981”), whereby service provisions were framed for the employees of the Corporation. Section 45 of Act, 1950 and Regulations 4 and 39 of Regulations, 1981, being relevant, are reproduced hereinafter: “45. Power to make regulations.-(1) A Corporation may with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-- (a) the manner in which, and the purposes for which, persons may be associated with the Board under Section 10; (b) the time and place of meetings of a the Board and the procedure to be followed in regard to transaction of business at such meetings; (c) the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and other employees of the Corporation other than the Managing Director, the Chief Accounts Officer and the Financial Adviser or, as the case may be, the Chief Accounts Officer-cum-Financial Adviser; (d) the issue of passes to the employees of the Corporation and other persons under Section 19; (e) the grant of refund in respect of unused tickets and concessional passes under Section 19; (f) the period after the expiration of which unclaimed articles or goods may be sold by public auction; (g) the regulation of the carriage of passengers and goods in the road transport services of the Corporation.” "4. Option by the employees of the erstwhile Government Roadways Department and other employees. Option by the employees of the erstwhile Government Roadways Department and other employees. - (1) An employee of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways Department who was placed on deputation with the Corporation and who has or is deemed to have offered for absorption in the Service of the Corporation in accordance with Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Organisation (Abolition of Posts and Absorptions of Employee) Rules, 1982 ( hereinafter referred to as the said, Rules), shall with effect from August 28, 1982, sand so absorbed, and shall, accordingly cense to be an employee of the State Government with effect from the said date. Provided that the terms and conditions of service of the employees so absorbed in the Service of the Corporation shall, subject to the provisions of G.O. No. 3414/XXX-2-170- N-72, dated July 5, 1972, and the said rules be governed by these regulations. (2) (i) Existing employees, who are not covered by sub- regulation (1) or those who are not exempted under Regulation 2, shall within one month of the commencement of these regulations, inform the appointing authority or such authority as the General Manager may in this behalf appoint whether or not they want to be governed by these regulations. (ii) If they opt or fail to exercise their option for being governed by these regulations, their terms and conditions of appointment, so far as they are inconsistent with these regulations, shall stand rescinded: Provided that, in respect of workmen where any of the provisions of these regulations is less favourable than the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Factories Act, 1948 or of any other Act applicable to them, the provisions of such Act shall apply. (iii) If such persons do not opt for being governed by these regulations, their services may be terminated in accordance with the terms of their appointment." "39. Pension and other retirement benefits-(1)(i) Subject to the provisions of clause (ii) of this sub- regulation, an employee of the Corporation shall not be entitled to pension, but he shall be entitled to the retirement benefits mentioned in sub-regulation (2). Pension and other retirement benefits-(1)(i) Subject to the provisions of clause (ii) of this sub- regulation, an employee of the Corporation shall not be entitled to pension, but he shall be entitled to the retirement benefits mentioned in sub-regulation (2). (ii) A person, who was the employee of the State Government in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways and has opted for the service of the Corporation, shall be entitled to pension and other retirement benefits in terms of the G.O. No.3414/302-170-N-72, dated July 5, 1972. (iii) Such employees who have come in the service of the Corporation on pensionable posts on 1st June, 1972 or after that and now those posts have been declared non-pensionable under this Rule; the Corporation would contribute in the Provident Fund of such employees as desired under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub- regulation (1) an employee (including an employee who was in the service of the State Government in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways Department), shall be entitled to the following retirement benefits: (i) Employees Provident Fund or the General Provident Fund, as the case may be; (ii) Gratuity in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or the relevant Government Rules, as may be applicable; (iii) Amount due under Group Insurance Scheme, 1976; (iv) One free family pass in a year for journey within the State; (v) A free family pass for his return to his home from the place of posting at the time of retirement in case he does not accept railway fare; (vi) Any other benefit that may be allowed by the Corporation from time to time. " 11. Rules 1, 4 and 8 of “The Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Organization (Abolition of Posts and Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1982” (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1982”), being relevant, are reproduced hereinafter: “1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Organisation (Abolition of Posts and Absorpotion of Employees) Rules, 1982. (2) They shall come into force at once.” “4. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Organisation (Abolition of Posts and Absorpotion of Employees) Rules, 1982. (2) They shall come into force at once.” “4. Option to employees and absorption in Corporation service.-(1) An employee of the U. P. State Roadways Organisation, who was placed on deputation with the Corporation and who does not wish to be absorbed in the service of the Corporation, shall, within 3 months from the notification of these Rules in the Gazette, intimate the Secretary to Government in the Transport Department that he does not wish to be so absorbed. (2) Every other employee who does not give an intimation, in accordance with sub-rule (1), shall be deemed to have exercised his option for absorption in the service of the Corporation. (3) An employee, who is deemed to have opted for absorption in the service of the Corporation, in accordance with sub-rule (2), shall stand so absorbed with effect from the date of expiry of three months from the date of notification of these rules and his service under the State Government shall, with effect from the same date cease.” “8. Consequences where employee is absorved in the service of the Corporation.--(i) Leave account of the employee shall be transferred to the Corporation and the Corporation shall not be entitled to receive any contribution or compensation on this account from the Government. (ii) Government shall bear the liability for pension, (which does not include family pension), and for gratuity, (if admissible to an employee), in proportion to the qualifying service in the Government rendered by an employee before the date of his being placed on deputation with the Corporation, the entire liability for family pension shall be borne by the Corporation. (iii) Employees provident fund scheme.--In respect of an employee who did not hold any pensionable post but was a member of an Employee's Provident Fund Scheme, the liability for contribution required to be made by an employer, for the period prior to 1-6-1972 shall be that of the Government and with effect from 1-6-1972, it shall be that of the Corporation. (iv) An employee shall, from the date of his absorption, cease to subscribe to his General Provident Fund account, if any, under the State Government and the amount to his credit in the fund, together with interest thereon, according to rules till the month preceding the date of transfer of his account shall be transferred to his new account to be opened under the Corporation.” 12. In the year 1986, Corporation on basis of parameters determined by a report submitted by Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services for determination of number of Officers required in comparison to numbers of bus services, a considered proposal was prepared by Corporation for creation of 135 temporary posts of Assistant Regional Manager, which was adopted in the 98th meeting of the Board of Directors of Corporation and accordingly Corporation by an order dated 17.10.1986 created referred posts on temporary basis. The ‘Proposal’, it’s ‘Adoption’ and ‘Order’ are reproduced hereinafter :- Proposal 13. All petitioners were appointed against referred created posts initially on temporary basis on probation on different dates between 1986 to 1990 and got retired between 2013 to 2023, except one petitioner who will retire on 30.11.2026. Copy of appointment letter of Petitioner-1 is annexed alongwith this writ petition and condition no. 2 thereof being relevant is mentioned hereinafter: 14. During the service of petitioners, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “UPSRTC”) with previous sanction of State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 of Act, 1950 and in supersession of all exiting regulations and orders on the subject makes the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Officers Service (General) Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 1998”), for regulating the conditions of service of officers appointed to UPSRTC. Relevant Regulations 2, 17 and 25 are extracted hereinafter:- “2. Application.- Except as otherwise expressed or implied, these regulations with such amendments or modifications, as may be made by the Board from time to time, shall apply to the officers who stood absorbed or have opted for service under the Corporation and to the officers appointed by the Corporation on or after first day of June, 1972 whether:- (a) in a substantive capacity, or (b) in an officiating capacity against a regular vacancy, or (c) on adhoc basis, or (d) in any other capacity whatsoever.” “17. Superannuation/Retirement Benefits.- The Board may decide as to the type of provident fund to be established for the welfare of the officers, namely, Contributory Provident Fund, Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme or General Provident Fund and/or Family Pension Scheme. The officer's contribution, the employer's contribution, the method of deduction, regulations regarding withdrawal shall be such as may be provided in the specific regulations prepared and approved by the Board for the establishment and operation of such provident fund schemes.” “25. Effect of Enforcement of these regulations.-(1) These regulations shall apply to all the officers of the Corporation who are in the service of the Corporation on the date of the commencement of these regulations and to those who join the said service after such commencement. (2) The officers who are in the service of the Corporation shall give an undertaking within a month from the date of the commencement of these regulations that they have read and understood the regulations and accept the same. On refusal to accept these regulations, the Appointing Authority may consider termination of their employment on the basis of the terms and conditions of the employment. All the officers who join the said service after such commencement shall be required to give the said undertaking before joining the service in the Corporation.” 15. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 20.10.2004, whereby an order was passed in regard to pension to employees appointed between 01.06.1972 to 19.06.1981, when Regulations, 1981 were enforced. The same is mentioned hereinafter: 16. There were some communications from State Government to Corporation on the issue of grant of pension. For reference communications dated 23.10.2008 and 12.06.2009 are reproduced hereinafter: Communication dated 23.10.2008 \ 17. The Petitioners have approached earlier before this Court by way of filing Writ-A No. 22832 of 2018, which was disposed of finally vide order dated 25.10.2018 with a liberty to State Government and Board of Directors of UPSRTC to consider the case of petitioners for pension. Relevant part of the order is extracted hereinafter: “5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Certain facts relevant for demand are beyond the pale of dispute. The Road Transport Corporation Act was incorporated by the State Government in exercise of power vested in Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Relevant part of the order is extracted hereinafter: “5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Certain facts relevant for demand are beyond the pale of dispute. The Road Transport Corporation Act was incorporated by the State Government in exercise of power vested in Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 deals with the conditions of service of the employees of the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and the powers of the State Government in regard thereto. The relevant provision is being extracted hereunder for ease of reference :- "34. Direction by the State Government.- (1) The State Government may, after consultation with a Corporation established by such Government, give to the Corporation general instructions to be followed by the Corporation, and such instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment, conditions of service and training of its employees, wages to be paid to the employees, reserves to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks. (2) In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act, the Corporation shall not depart from any general instructions issued under sub-section (1) except with the previous permission of the State Government." 7. The service conditions of the officers of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation were promulgated on 10.9.1998. The service rules for the officers of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation are called U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Officers Service (General) Regulations 1998. All the petitioners were appointed prior to the promulgation of the service rules on 10.9.1998. 8. In exercise of powers under Section 34(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, an order was taken out by the Governor on 21.7.1972. All the petitioners were appointed prior to the promulgation of the service rules on 10.9.1998. 8. In exercise of powers under Section 34(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, an order was taken out by the Governor on 21.7.1972. The Government Order dated 21.7.1972 which is referrable to Section 34 (1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 provides that from 01.06.1972 till the framing of the service rules by the U.P.S.R.T.C., the posts in the U.P.S.R.T.C. which came within the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission prior to the incorporation of the U.P.S.R.T.C., shall be governed and regulated by the service rules applicable to the employees of the U.P. State Roadways, prior to the incorporation of the U.P.S.R.T.C. The claim of the petitioners is that since they were appointed subsequent to 1.6.1972 and prior to the promulgation of the service regulations framed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation in 1998, they are entitled to be governed by the G.O. dated 21.7.1972. They claim pensionary benefits on the foot of the Government Order dated 21.7.1972. 9. Copious correspondence was exchanged between the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and authorities of the State Government regarding the aforesaid pensionary rights claimed by the petitioner on the footing of the government order of 21.7.1972. By way of an exemplar a communication dated 23.10.2008 sent by the Chief General Manager, (Administration), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to the competent authority the State Government recorded that there were a number of posts which came within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission and prior to the creation of the corporation and continue to exist in the corporation. The communication dated 23.10.2008 further records that the service regulations of the officers of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation were framed in the year 1998. Hence officers appointed from 01.06.1972 to 1998 would be entitled for pensionary benefits. The letter recommends consideration of the case of such officials to be granted pension from the State exchequer. In a communication sent by the Special Secretary, Govt. of U.P. to the Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation dated 12.6.2009 states that prima facie the demands of the officers for pension has merit. On 24.11.2017 the Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation sent a communication to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow. In a communication sent by the Special Secretary, Govt. of U.P. to the Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation dated 12.6.2009 states that prima facie the demands of the officers for pension has merit. On 24.11.2017 the Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation sent a communication to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow. The letter dated 24.11.2017 after giving a brief back drop of the aforesaid controversy and communications in this regard refers to the Government Order dated 21.07.1972, taken out under Section 34(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and other communications between the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The letter dated 24.11.2017 most importantly records that the U.P. Road Transport Corporation Ltd. will bear the financial burden of payment of pension to its officers. The pension bill of similarly situated pensioners in the U.P.S.R.T.C. is being borne by the U.P.S.R.T.C. Such pensioners are being paid out by the financial resources of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Finally the aforesaid interactive correspondence between the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation culminated in a letter of the State Government sent by the Under Secretary, Govt. of U.P., on 25.1.2018. The letter directs the Managing Director of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow to process and forward the resolution of the Board of Directors of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for grant of pensionary benefits to the officers appointed between 1.6.1972 and 2.10.1998. 10. The meeting of Board of Directors was convened on several dates including 17.7.2018 and 18.9.2018. However, on both the dates the Board of Directors failed to pass a resolution in this regard. 11. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and the relief claimed in the instant writ petition, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending in this court. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 12. The claim of the petitioners for pension has to be decided by the competent authority. The claim has been made on the footing of the government order issued under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and correspondence between the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, on the subject. The decision cannot be postponed indefinitely. 13. 12. The claim of the petitioners for pension has to be decided by the competent authority. The claim has been made on the footing of the government order issued under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and correspondence between the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, on the subject. The decision cannot be postponed indefinitely. 13. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Directors of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The Board of Director are arrayed as respondent no.3 in the instant writ petition. A mandamus is issued to the Board of Directors to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation commanding the Board to pass a resolution in regard to the claim of the pension of the officers appointed between the period 1.6.1972 to 2.10.1998. The Board shall take a decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along-with fresh representation made by such officers in that regard. The final resolution passed by the Board in the matter shall be communicated to the State Government within period of one month from the date of the resolution. The State Government shall take consequential action on the resolution passed by the State Government as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such resolution of the Board of Directors. 14. It is clarified that this court has not gone into veracity or the legitimacy of the claim of the petitioners for grant of pension. Grant of pensionary benefits is the prerogative of the Board of Directors of the U.P.S.R.T.C. and the State Government. Grant of pension and other service conditions are policy decisions. It is not the province of the courts to issue any directions to adopt any preferred policy option. It is for the State Government and the Board of Directors of the U.P.S.R.T.C. to take the final decision. There are huge financial implications which need to be considered by the competent authorities. All relevant considerations have to be factored in before a final decision is made. The rights of the petitioners in the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs is limited to the consideration of their case. The nature of the decision in this regard is the sole province of the said authorities. All relevant considerations have to be factored in before a final decision is made. The rights of the petitioners in the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs is limited to the consideration of their case. The nature of the decision in this regard is the sole province of the said authorities. It is for the Board of Directors and the State Government to apply their minds independently and take a decision in that regard. 15. The writ petition is disposed of finally.” 18. In pursuance of referred liberty, the petitioners submitted a joint representation dated 03.12.2018 to the Board of Directors, UPSRTC through its Chairman. 19. The Director of Board of Corporation in its 220 th meeting on 25.01.2019 considered the issue of grating pension to officers appointed between 01.06.1972, when Corporation came into existence, and 03.10.1998, when Regulations, 1998 came into force. Board took decision on said proposal and on ground that the Corporation has suffered loss between April, 2018 to December, 2018 of about Rs. 98.10 crores in comparison of same period in the year 2017, rejected claim of granting pension. For reference the ‘Proposal’ and ‘Decision’ is mentioned hereinafter: 20. Initially this writ petition was filed to challenge the aforesaid resolution dated 17.01.2019 with prayer to grant pension to petitioners who were appointed between 01.06.1972 to 03.10.1998. 21. During pendency of this writ petition this Court has passed orders on 17.03.2023 and 11.04.2023 and for reference the same are reproduced hereinafter: Order dated 17.03.2023 “Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava and Sri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents/UPSTRC. The dispute with regard to payment of pension to the petitioners was before this Court in Writ 'A' No.22832 of 2018 (Sandeep Raizada and 26 others Vs. State of U.P. & 4 others). The relevant portion of the said judgment dated 25.10.2018, reads as under:- "6. Certain facts relevant for demand are beyond the pale of dispute. The Road Transport Corporation Act was incorporated by the State Government in exercise of power vested in Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 deals with the conditions of service of the employees of the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and the powers of the State Government in regard thereto. Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 deals with the conditions of service of the employees of the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and the powers of the State Government in regard thereto. The relevant provision is being extracted hereunder for ease of reference :- "34. Direction by the State Government.? (1) The State Government may, after consultation with a Corporation established by such Government, give to the Corporation general instructions to be followed by the Corporation, and such instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment, conditions of service and training of its employees, wages to be paid to the employees, reserves to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks. (2) In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act, the Corporation shall not depart from any general instructions issued under sub-section (1) except with the previous permission of the State Government." 7. The service conditions of the officers of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation were promulgated on 10.9.1998. The service rules for the officers of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation are called U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Officers Service (General) Regulations 1998. All the petitioners were appointed prior to the promulgation of the service rules on 10.9.1998. 8. In exercise of powers under Section 34(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, an order was taken out by the Governor on 21.7.1972. The Government Order dated 21.7.1972 which is referrable to Section 34 (1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 provides that from 01.06.1972 till the framing of the service rules by the U.P.S.R.T.C., the posts in the U.P.S.R.T.C. which came within the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission prior to the incorporation of the U.P.S.R.T.C., shall be governed and regulated by the service rules applicable to the employees of the U.P. State Roadways, prior to the incorporation of the U.P.S.R.T.C. The claim of the petitioners is that since they were appointed subsequent to 1.6.1972 and prior to the promulgation of the service regulations framed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation in 1998, they are entitled to be governed by the G.O. dated 21.7.1972. They claim pensionary benefits on the foot of the Government Order dated 21.7.1972. 9. They claim pensionary benefits on the foot of the Government Order dated 21.7.1972. 9. Copious correspondence was exchanged between the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and authorities of the State Government regarding the aforesaid pensionary rights claimed by the petitioner on the footing of the government order of 21.7.1972. By way of an exemplar a communication dated 23.10.2008 sent by the Chief General Manager, (Administration), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to the competent authority the State Government recorded that there were a number of posts which came within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission and prior to the creation of the corporation and continue to exist in the corporation. The communication dated 23.10.2008 further records that the service regulations of the officers of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation were framed in the year 1998. Hence officers appointed from 01.06.1972 to 1998 would be entitled for pensionary benefits. The letter recommends consideration of the case of such officials to be granted pension from the State exchequer. In a communication sent by the Special Secretary, Govt. of U.P. to the Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation dated 12.6.2009 states that prima facie the demands of the officers for pension has merit. On 24.11.2017 the Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation sent a communication to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow. The letter dated 24.11.2017 after giving a brief back drop of the aforesaid controversy and communications in this regard refers to the Government Order dated 21.07.1972, taken out under Section 34(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and other communications between the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The letter dated 24.11.2017 most importantly records that the U.P. Road Transport Corporation Ltd. will bear the financial burden of payment of pension to its officers. The pension bill of similarly situated pensioners in the U.P.S.R.T.C. is being borne by the U.P.S.R.T.C. Such pensioners are being paid out by the financial resources of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Finally the aforesaid interactive correspondence between the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation culminated in a letter of the State Government sent by the Under Secretary, Govt. of U.P., on 25.1.2018. Finally the aforesaid interactive correspondence between the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation culminated in a letter of the State Government sent by the Under Secretary, Govt. of U.P., on 25.1.2018. The letter directs the Managing Director of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow to process and forward the resolution of the Board of Directors of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for grant of pensionary benefits to the officers appointed between 1.6.1972 and 2.10.1998. 10. The meeting of Board of Directors was convened on several dates including 17.7.2018 and 18.9.2018. However, on both the dates the Board of Directors failed to pass a resolution in this regard. 11. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and the relief claimed in the instant writ petition, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending in this court. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 12. The claim of the petitioners for pension has to be decided by the competent authority. The claim has been made on the footing of the government order issued under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and correspondence between the State Government and the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, on the subject. The decision cannot be postponed indefinitely. 13. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Directors of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The Board of Director are arrayed as respondent no.3 in the instant writ petition. A mandamus is issued to the Board of Directors to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation commanding the Board to pass a resolution in regard to the claim of the pension of the officers appointed between the period 1.6.1972 to 2.10.1998. The Board shall take a decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along-with fresh representation made by such officers in that regard. The final resolution passed by the Board in the matter shall be communicated to the State Government within period of one month from the date of the resolution. The State Government shall take consequential action on the resolution passed by the State Government as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such resolution of the Board of Directors. 14. The State Government shall take consequential action on the resolution passed by the State Government as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such resolution of the Board of Directors. 14. It is clarified that this court has not gone into veracity or the legitimacy of the claim of the petitioners for grant of pension. Grant of pensionary benefits is the prerogative of the Board of Directors of the U.P.S.R.T.C. and the State Government. Grant of pension and other service conditions are policy decisions. It is not the province of the courts to issue any directions to adopt any preferred policy option. It is for the State Government and the Board of Directors of the U.P.S.R.T.C. to take the final decision. There are huge financial implications which need to be considered by the competent authorities. All relevant considerations have to be factored in before a final decision is made. The rights of the petitioners in the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs is limited to the consideration of their case. The nature of the decision in this regard is the sole province of the said authorities. It is for the Board of Directors and the State Government to apply their minds independently and take a decision in that regard. 15. The writ petition is disposed of finally." Despite there being such specific directions requiring the Board to consider the claim of the petitioners, the Board in its 220th Meeting dated 17.01.2019 by Resolution No. 41 did not consider the claim of the petitioners on merits; rather refused to consider the same on the ground that the Corporation is not in a financial condition to pay the same. The said decision of the Board in itself is a gross violation of the directions given by this Court. The present petition was filed in the year 2019 and even during the last four years the Board has refused to take any decision on merits in itself speak the conduct of the respondents. Hence, a cost of Rs.25,000/- with regard to each petitioner is to be paid by the Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow on or before 11.04.2023. Hence, a cost of Rs.25,000/- with regard to each petitioner is to be paid by the Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow on or before 11.04.2023. The Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, shall also ensure that the decision on merits is taken by the Board in furtherance of the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 25.10.2018 in Writ 'A' No.22832 of 2018, through his personal affidavit before this Court by the next date. In case of failure to comply with any of the direction, the Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C., shall be present in the Court on the next date. List this case on 11.04.2023.” Order dated 11.04.2023 “By order dated 17.03.2023 passed by this Court, the following directions were issued: "Despite there being such specific directions requiring the Board to consider the claim of the petitioners, the Board in its 220th Meeting dated 17.01.2019 by Resolution No. 41 did not consider the claim of the petitioners on merits; rather refused to consider the same on the ground that the Corporation is not in a financial condition to pay the same. The said decision of the Board in itself is a gross violation of the directions given by this Court. The present petition was filed in the year 2019 and even during the last four years the Board has refused to take any decision on merits in itself speak the conduct of the respondents. Hence, a cost of Rs.25,000/- with regard to each petitioner is to be paid by the Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow on or before 11.04.2023. The Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, shall also ensure that the decision on merits is taken by the Board in furtherance of the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 25.10.2018 in Writ 'A' No.22832 of 2018, through his personal affidavit before this Court by the next date. In case of failure to comply with any of the direction, the Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C., shall be present in the Court on the next date. List this case on 11.04.2023." Today, an application for exemption along with compliance affidavit is filed. In the application for exemption there is no mention that order dated 17.03.2023, has been complied with regard to both directions. It merely prays for exemption of personal appearance of the Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C. today. List this case on 11.04.2023." Today, an application for exemption along with compliance affidavit is filed. In the application for exemption there is no mention that order dated 17.03.2023, has been complied with regard to both directions. It merely prays for exemption of personal appearance of the Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C. today. In Paragraph 03 of the affidavit, it is stated that with regard to payment of cost amounting to Rs.25,000/- to each petitioner by order dated 17.03.2023, the same is assailed in Special Appeal No.182 of 2023 filed on 28.03.2023. Learned counsel for respondents/Corporation admits that till date no stay order is granted in the said special appeal. Paragraph 03, of application also states that some more time may be granted to pay cost and case be fixed after the date fixed in special appeal. The prayer on the face of it is vague and cannot be accepted. Two days' further time is granted to the respondents to comply with the order for payment of cost as directed by order dated 17.03.2023, failing which the Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C. shall be present in the Court. It goes without saying that costs paid shall be subject to the decision passed in special appeal. Put up on 13.04.2023, amongst top ten cases in the additional cause list.” 22. Subsequently, the Board passed two resolutions dated 06.04.2023 and 19.10.2023, therefore, two amendment applications were filed being Amendment Applications No. 18 of 2023 and 22 of 2023 to challenge the resolution of Board of Directors of Respondent-Corporation dated 06.04.2023 and 18.10.2023. These amendment applications were allowed vide order dated 02.05.2024 and accordingly amended writ petition was filed. For reference ‘Proposal’ and ‘Resolution’ adopted by Board of Directors dated 06.04.2023 and 18.10.2023 are reproduced hereinafter: Proposal and Resolution dated 06.04.2023 23. A third amendment application, being Amendment Application No. 25 of 2024, was filed to challenge the amended agenda dated 27.06.2024 but neither it was pressed nor considered by this Court. However, for reference said resolution is also reproduced hereinafter: Submission on behalf of Petitioners 24. Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Srivastava and Sri Himanshu Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that service conditions of petitioners who were appointed much prior to Regulations, 1998 came into force, were protected by Government Order dated 21.07.2072 that it will remain same as applicable to the earlier appointees when Corporation came into existence. Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Srivastava and Sri Himanshu Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that service conditions of petitioners who were appointed much prior to Regulations, 1998 came into force, were protected by Government Order dated 21.07.2072 that it will remain same as applicable to the earlier appointees when Corporation came into existence. No subsequent provision or regulations could change the conditions of service, which also include pension. Petitioners cannot be put in adverse situation on basis of any subsequent regulations on the subject. 25. Learned Senior Advocate by referring Government Order dated 29.05.1972 submitted that a post earlier known as Sahayak Pradhan Prabandhak was renamed as Assistant Regional Manager after Corporation came into existence. Therefore, the posts on which petitioners were appointed were earlier existed and service provisions applicable to said posts are squarely applicable to petitioners also. 26. Learned Senior Advocate by repeatedly referring Government Order dated 21.07.1972 has mentioned that it was issued under Section 34(1) of Act, 1950 after consultation with Corporation and on behalf of Governor, therefore, it shall be binding upon Corporation. In this regard he refers a judgement passed by Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation vs. Devraj Urs and another , (1976)2 SCC 862 that since it was already acted upon, therefore, the subsequent Regulations, 1998 would have no bearing on it. 27. Learned Senior Advocate by referring another judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Shardul Singh , (1970)1 SCC 108 submitted that conditions of service would also include pension. By referring letter dated 23.10.2008 and 26.10.2017 he submitted that seniority list shows that post of Assistant Regional Manager/ Assistant General Manager was within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission. 28. Some of the arguments of learned Senior Advocate raised during arguments and mentioned in written submission, are reproduced hereinafter: “6. The officers who were appointed on the newly created posts of Assistant Regional Manager in the year 1978, have been granted pension by the Corporation. 28. Some of the arguments of learned Senior Advocate raised during arguments and mentioned in written submission, are reproduced hereinafter: “6. The officers who were appointed on the newly created posts of Assistant Regional Manager in the year 1978, have been granted pension by the Corporation. The pleadings in that respect made in paragraph 20 & 61 of writ petition have not been denied in paragraph 20 & 47 of counter affidavit and the Pension Payment Orders of some such officers appointed on newly created posts of Assistant Regional Manager and filed as Annexure No. SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.02.2020 (necessary pleadings in paragraph no. 6 of supplementary affidavit) have not been denied in paragraph no. 36 of the supplementary counter affidavit. 7. The petitioners were appointed prior to framing of the Service Regulations 1998, and hence are entitled to pension and other post retirement benefits as payable to the officers of erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways, in accordance with the Government Order dated 21.07.1972. The date of appointment, etc., of the petitioners have been mentioned in para no. 17 of the writ petition which has not been denied in para no. 17 of the counter affidavit. 8. Even the appointment order of the petitioners provided that their services shall be governed by the Service Regulations to be framed under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, and till such regulations are finally brought into effect, their services shall be governed by the Service Rules of the State of U.P. as applicable to the Government Servants as per G.O. dated 21.07.1972 (kindly refer to Annexure No.1 of the writ petition. 9. The right to pension accrues on the date of commencement of recruitment /of appointment. Hence rejection of the claim for pension to the petitioners by the Corporation amounts to resiling from the condition of service/promise made while giving appointment to the petitioners, and is impermissible under law. (i) Writ (S/S) No. 1170 of 2010, Ashutosh Joshi vs State of Uttarakhand. (ii) Writ (S/S) No.944 of 2010, Balwant Singh & Others State of Uttarakhand. (para 9) upheld in Special Appeal NO.330 of 2013 vide judgment dated 26.06.2014. (iii) 2012 (1) ADJ 165 , Raj Kumar Pundir us State of U.P, (paras 3, 7). (iv) 2023 (11) ADJ 524 , Nrupama Malviya vs State of U.P, (paras 20, 21, 22).” “11. (ii) Writ (S/S) No.944 of 2010, Balwant Singh & Others State of Uttarakhand. (para 9) upheld in Special Appeal NO.330 of 2013 vide judgment dated 26.06.2014. (iii) 2012 (1) ADJ 165 , Raj Kumar Pundir us State of U.P, (paras 3, 7). (iv) 2023 (11) ADJ 524 , Nrupama Malviya vs State of U.P, (paras 20, 21, 22).” “11. In accordance with the Government Order dated 21.07.1972, the officers of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways working on pensionable posts (Assistant General Manager re-designated as Assistant Regional Manager) and the petitioners / officers appointed as Assistant Regional Manager between 01.06.1972 till the date of framing of Service Regulations i.e. 10.09.1998, formed one homogenous class vis-à-vis pension. The impugned orders/resolutions therefore, are discriminatory and violative of Article 14, as it creates a distinct class out of the same homogenous class.” 29. Learned Senior Advocate also challenged the resolution dated 17.01.2019 that it was arbitrary, perverse and unreasonable. Financial result of Corporation ought to have been considered on basis of whole financial year and it was profitable. Learned Senior Advocate also challenged the resolution dated 06.04.2023 that it was contrary to the purport of Government Order dated 21.07.1972, which has specifically provided that till framing of Officers’ Service Regulations, the conditions of service applicable to the Government servants in erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways will continue to apply to such Officers. So far as resolution dated 18.10.2023 is concerned, learned Senior Advocate submitted that it was also incorrect and perverse. 30. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that in all only 128 officers of Corporation are now left, who would be entitled to pension as per Government Order dated 21.07.1972 and 12.06.2009 and till March, 2019, 27 Officers out of total 128, have retired. The remaining 111 Officers would retire uptill 2032-33. As such, financial liability for payment of pension to them is not too much as contended by Respondent-Corporation. 31. Learned Senior Advocate by referring the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma , (2015)9 SCC 540 submitted that it is a settled law that pension is not a bounty and an employee cannot be deprived of pension in violation of service condition providing for the same. 32. 31. Learned Senior Advocate by referring the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma , (2015)9 SCC 540 submitted that it is a settled law that pension is not a bounty and an employee cannot be deprived of pension in violation of service condition providing for the same. 32. By referring various communications between State and Corporation learned Senior Advocate has submitted that despite there were specific observations and directions of State to consider claim of petitioners for pension being appointed between Government Order dated 21.07.1972 and 03.10.1998 when Regulations, 1998 came into force but said observations were ignored by respondents. Submission of behalf of Respondent-Corporation 33. Per contra, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent-Corporation, has submitted that pension can be granted only on basis of relevant provisions, however, in the present case petitioners have not been able to show any Rules, Regulations or Act which could provide pension to them. Learned Senior Advocate has placed heavy reliance on U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association (supra) wherein history of Corporation was considered and while considering the issue of pension so far as employees of Corporation is concerned in relation to Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 that pension could be granted only when there are specific provisions for the same. He has referred few paragraphs of aforesaid judgment with regard to law of pension and the same are reproduced hereinafter: 29. In order to examine the appellants’ claim for pension it is necessary to dwell on the pre-requisites provided in the GO dated 28.10.1960. To be covered in the GO for receiving pension it is necessary for the appellants to plead and establish firstly, that they were holding permanent posts in the Roadways, and they fall in the three categories of employees referred to in para (1) of the GO. It is not the case of the appellants that they were made permanent by any express order issued by the Roadways management, nor they claim to be working in any of the three posts referred to in para (1) of the GO. It is not the case of the appellants that they were made permanent by any express order issued by the Roadways management, nor they claim to be working in any of the three posts referred to in para (1) of the GO. Since para (2) of the GO clearly provides that the rest of the permanent non-gazetted employees both in the traffic and engineering sections of the organization, would be treated as non-pensionable and similarly, all temporary employees will also be non-pensionable, the appellants are not entitled to pension as per GO dated 28.10.1960. Secondly, the appellants are not covered under Article 350 as amended on 20.04.1997 of the Regulations to hold the pensionable posts inasmuch as despite amendment in the first part of Article 350 of the Regulations, Note 3 thereof has not suffered amendment which provides that service in non- gazetted posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions in Uttar Pradesh does not qualify in the case of persons appointed to such posts on or after 15.11.1938. Since the Roadways is considered to be Technical and Industrial Institution, the appellants are covered under Note 3 of Article 350, and they are not entitled for pension. 30. The High Court, under the impugned judgment, has observed that the appellants having received retiral benefits including the benefit under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that they should also be given pension. We have also considered this aspect of the matter and we approve the observations of the High Court on the principle that a party to the litigation cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. See National Council of Educational Research and Training vs. Shyam Babu Maheshwari & Ors., (2011)6 SCC 412 Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India, (1990)4 SCC 207 and Union of India vs. Kailas, (1998)9 SCC721. 31. Similarly, in the matter of V.K. Ramamurthy vs. Union of India & Anr., (1996)10 SCC 73 this Court considered the claim for pension of those who opted for pension after a long gap of retirement and held in para 4 that the contributory provident fund retirees form a different class from those who had opted for pension scheme and as such they are not entitled to claim as of right to switch over from Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme. Similar is the proposition in the matter of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (1992) Supp(1) SCC 664.” “35. The common thread in the above referred judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules.” “49. We have already discussed the legal effect of the GOs dated 07.06.1972 and 05.07.1972 read along with Clause (4) of Regulation 39 of the Regulations, 1981. To reiterate, only those employees of the State Government working in the Roadways who have opted for services of the Corporation shall be entitled for pension and other retirement benefits in terms of GO dated 05.07.1972. However, other employees of the Corporation shall not be entitled to pension, but they shall be entitled to the retirement benefits mentioned in sub- Regulations (1) and (2) of Regulation 39. Thus, it is amply clear that only State Government employees absorbed in the Corporation shall be entitled to pension, “phrase that their service conditions shall not be inferior to the conditions as were available under the Government” would be applicable to the State Government employees for the purposes of according benefit of pension. The employees of Roadways who were not holding any pensionable post prior to their deputation or absorption in the Corporation, are not entitled to pension, as their service conditions in the erstwhile Roadways did not provide that they are entitled to pension. Thus, they have not been put to any inferior service conditions on their joining the services in the Corporation. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court was not correct in holding that the members of the RKSP are entitled to pension even if they have been promoted after the cutoff date of 27.08.1982.” 34. Learned Senior Advocate for Respondent-Corporation has vehemently referred the provisions of Regulations, 1998 that it was made in supersession of all existing regulations and orders on the subject. Learned Senior Advocate for Respondent-Corporation has vehemently referred the provisions of Regulations, 1998 that it was made in supersession of all existing regulations and orders on the subject. The said declaration is reproduced hereinafter:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 of The Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Act No. 64 of 1950) and in supersession of all existing regulations and orders, on the subject, the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation with the previous sanction of the State Government makes the following regulations regulating the conditions of the service of the offers appointed to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Officers Service.” 35. Learned Senior Advocate also referred the contents of Regulation 2 (Application); Regulation 17 (Superannuation / Retirement Benefits); and, Regulation 25 (Effect of Enforcement of these regulations), which are already referred in earlier paragraph of this judgment. By referring contents of Regulation 2, learned counsels submitted that Regulations, 1998 shall apply to the Officers, who stood absorbed or have opted for service under the Corporation and to the Officers appointed by the Corporation on or after first day of June, 1972 whether, in a substantive capacity; or in an officiating capacity against a regular vacancy; or on ad hoc basis; or in any other capacity whatsoever. 36. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that petitioners have claimed that they were appointed against substantive capacity after 1 st June, 1972, therefore, these Regulations shall be applicable in entirety to petitioners also irrespective of earlier orders on the subject, i.e., Government Order dated 21.07.1972 since these regulations were made in supersession of all existing regulations and orders, therefore, services of petitioners would govern after 03.10.1998 when Regulations, 1998 came into force as per its provision. He submitted that Regulation 17 is on superannuation / retirement benefits and the Board has not taken any decision that petitioners were entitled for pension. 37. Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel added that after Regulations, 1998 came into force except of the posts specifically declared pensionable, no other posts have option of pension. He submitted that Regulation 17 is on superannuation / retirement benefits and the Board has not taken any decision that petitioners were entitled for pension. 37. Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel added that after Regulations, 1998 came into force except of the posts specifically declared pensionable, no other posts have option of pension. Learned Senior Advocate has also vehemently referred the effect of enforcement of these regulations and by referring Regulation 25 submitted that petitioners must have given undertaking within a month on the date of commencement that provisions of Regulations, 1998 are accepted to them as well as that no provision of Regulations, 1998 is under challenge. 38. Learned counsel has referred the history behind creation of 135 posts against which petitioners were appointed that it were newly created posts and only on basis of nomenclature petitioners could not equate the said posts with earlier posts which are pensionable. By referring the communications made by State he submitted that contents of said letters show that there was no direction that petitioners are entitled for pension and they have left to the Board to consider their claim for pension. Any reference in said letters was not binding upon the Board of Corporation. Even in earlier round of litigation liberty was granted to the Board and the State to consider the claim of petitioners, therefore, no benefit be granted to petitioners of said letters. 39. Learned counsel also referred the appointment letters of petitioners that they were initially appointed on temporary posts of Corporation and they never challenged any service conditions or approached this Court or respondents soon after Regulations, 1998 came into force. 40. Learned counsel by repeatedly referring the contents of Government Order dated 21.07.1972 submitted that it was only with regard to “selection process” and not “service conditions” such as pension. Rejoinder Submission on behalf of Petitioners 41. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners has submitted that reliance on U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association (supra) is completely misplaced and untenable as the ratio of aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of present case. Before Supreme Court neither the question of effect of Government Order dated 21.07.1972 nor Regulations, 1998 were raised or considered. Said judgment was limited to the claim of pension of employees of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ of Corporation and Government Orders issued in that regard. Before Supreme Court neither the question of effect of Government Order dated 21.07.1972 nor Regulations, 1998 were raised or considered. Said judgment was limited to the claim of pension of employees of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ of Corporation and Government Orders issued in that regard. Learned Senior Advocate has referred the judgments passed by Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court which led to Supreme Court. 42. With regard to argument on delay, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners has referred para 17 of writ petition, that it was not denied in para 18 of counter affidavit. For reference para 17 of writ petition and para 18 of counter affidavit are reproduced hereinafter: “17. That similar appointment orders had been issued in favour of all other petitioners. The details of the appointment and other service details of all the petitioners are mentioned in the chart given below :- Sl. No. Name Date of Date of Date of Appointment Promotion & Retirement s as ARM Post 1. Sandeep Raizada 01.07.1990 RM:02.11.12 21.09.2017 Sl. No. Name Date of Appointment s as ARM Date of Promotion & Post Date of Retirement 1. Sandeep Raizada 01.07.1990 RM:02.11.12 21.09.2017 (Vol. Retired) 2 . Aqeel Akhtar Farooqi 19.12.1998 RM:02.11.12 30.04.2016 3 . Flavian Remy Francis 19.12.1986 28.02.2018 4 . Anil Kumar 16.01.1987 31.05.2018 5 . Lalit Rajvanshi 31.01.1987 30.06.2018 6 . Ramesh Chander Sukhija 19.06.1987 31.12.2017 7 . Karri Satyanarayana Murty 27.09.1986 31.08.2018 8 . Chandra Prakash T iwari 10.10.1986 31.10.2014 9 . Ajay Kumar Srivastava 21.08.1988 SM:14.09.10 30.08.2013 (Vol. Retired) 10. Junaid Ahmad Ansari 29.04.1988 31.05.2018 11. Alok Kumar Saxena 26.09.1986 RM:26.02.05 GM:19.06.14 30.09.2018 12. Asit Kumar Banerjea 29.07.1990 30.11.2018 13. Harmeet Singh Gaba 25.09.1986 RM:10.06.04 GM:19.06.14 31.01.2019 14. Sanjiv Chandra Sinha 19.12.1986 30.06.2019 15. Harish Chandra 26.09.1986 31.12.2019 16. Saad Saeed 25.09.1986 RM:14.12.04 GM:19.06.14 31.12.2019 17. Rajesh Verma 24.10.1986 RM:06.08.04 GM:19.06.14 31.05.2020 18. Atul Bharti 25.09.1986 RM:04.02.06 GM:19.06.14 31.07.2020 19. Pranay Ranjan Belwariar 30.12.1986 RM:14.08.07 GM:16.06.16 31.12.2020 20. Jaideep Verma 10.10.1986 SM:14.08.07 GM:26.09.15 31.08.2021 21. Manoj Ranjan 10.10.1986 SM:14.12.06 GM:25.05.12 31.10.2021 22. Ataur Rahman 10.10.1986 SM:14.08.07 GM:18.04.18 30.04.2022 23. V ivek Mathur 10.10.1986 SM:14.08.07 GM:09.06.16 31.01.2023 24. Sanjay Shukla 10.10.1986 SM:14.08.07 GM:18.04.18 31.01.2023 25. V idyanshoo Krishan 25.09.1986 28.02.2023 26. Shachindra Pratap Singh 01.07.1990 SM:18.06.12 31.12.2023 27. Sanjeev Kant 01.07.1990 30.11.2026 “18. That in reply to paragraph no. Jaideep Verma 10.10.1986 SM:14.08.07 GM:26.09.15 31.08.2021 21. Manoj Ranjan 10.10.1986 SM:14.12.06 GM:25.05.12 31.10.2021 22. Ataur Rahman 10.10.1986 SM:14.08.07 GM:18.04.18 30.04.2022 23. V ivek Mathur 10.10.1986 SM:14.08.07 GM:09.06.16 31.01.2023 24. Sanjay Shukla 10.10.1986 SM:14.08.07 GM:18.04.18 31.01.2023 25. V idyanshoo Krishan 25.09.1986 28.02.2023 26. Shachindra Pratap Singh 01.07.1990 SM:18.06.12 31.12.2023 27. Sanjeev Kant 01.07.1990 30.11.2026 “18. That in reply to paragraph no. 17 of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioners were appointed in year 1986 or thereafter i.e. subsequent to incorporation of the respondent corporation on the posts created for the first time in the respondent corporation, and the all appointments were subject to statutory rule to be framed in exercise of power conferred U/s of the Road Transport Corporation Act-1950.” 43. Following are some submissions mentioned in additional written submissions by learned counsel for respondents: “i. The posts in the U.P. Government Roadways stood transferred to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on creation of the Corporation w.e.f. 01.06.1972 (and the employees on such posts were treated to be on deputation to the Corporation). Hence, there was no question of creation of posts in the Government Roadways after 01.06.1972, which ceased to exist. ii. Neither the claim of petitioners for pension has been rejected on this ground, nor is there any such pleading/proof in the counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Corporation. iii. The U.P. Government Roadways (Abolition of Posts and Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1982 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition), were only applicable to the "employees" (defined under Rule 2 (ii)) of the U.P. Government Roadways who were on deputation with the Corporation. While the appointment orders on the post of Assistant Regional Manager issued in the year 1978 (filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) were issued by the respondent Corporation on the newly created posts, and those appointees were neither appointed in the U.P. Government Roadways, nor were on deputation with the Corporation.” 44. He also submitted that argument of learned counsel for respondents that Government Order dated 21.07.1972 only relates to the selection process and not pension, is incorrect since this reason has not been assigned while rejecting the petitioners claim for pension in impugned resolutions as well as aforesaid Government Order specifically refers to “service conditions” which include pension. 45. I have heard learned Advocates for parties, perused the documents and pleadings available on record. Discussion and Conclusion 46. 45. I have heard learned Advocates for parties, perused the documents and pleadings available on record. Discussion and Conclusion 46. On basis of above referred pleadings and rival submissions, the issue before this Court for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners, who were appointed on the post of Assistant Regional Manager between 1986 and 1990 on newly created posts, are entitled for Pension on basis of a Government Order dated 21.07.1972 issued under Section 34(1) of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 on a subject in regard to selection procedure of posts under Road Transport Corporation as well as communications made by State Government to UPSRTC irrespective of provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Officers Service (General) Regulations, 1998 made in supersession of all exiting regulations and orders on the subject by the UPSRTC with the previous sanction of the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub section (2) of Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950?” 47. First of all the Court takes note of brief history mention in earlier part of this judgment. The Road Transport Corporation in State of U.P. was constituted w.e.f. 01.06.1972 and thereafter by a Government Order dated 05.07.1972 services of all Officers as well as Employees working in U.P. Roadways were merged with State Road Transport Corporation and their services were considered in Corporation on deputation and it was left open that whenever the Corporation would make rules regarding service conditions of said officers and employees, their service conditions under Corporation would not be contemptuous than those conditions which were available to them under U.P. State Roadways and their service period, seniority under Corporation, promotion, fixation of pay, right concerning leave and financial benefit, would be considered in the way only as they would have remained in Government service. The word ‘pension’ was missing in said Government Order. 48. Subsequently by way of another Government Order dated 21.07.1972 directions were issued by State Government under Section 34(1) of Act, 1950. The word ‘pension’ was missing in said Government Order. 48. Subsequently by way of another Government Order dated 21.07.1972 directions were issued by State Government under Section 34(1) of Act, 1950. Said Government Order was on the subject, ^^jkT; lMd ifjogu fuxe es inks ds p;u lEc/akh izfØ;k^^ By way of said Government order, it was directed that those posts which were within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission and till U.P. Road Transport Corporation framed its rule, the service conditions of said posts, so far as appointment etc., shall remain same, i.e., as existed in U.P. Government Roadways. 49. The words ^^vU; lsok 'krZ^^ i.e., “other service conditions” would include ‘pension’ or not is an issue for determination before this Court. 50. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer the judgment passed by Supreme Court in U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association (supra) wherein it was reiterated that pension is a right and not a bounty. However, further a caveat was put that pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the Rules or Schemes and per contra if there is no rule to support the claim of pension, the Writ Court cannot issue a mandamus directing an employer to provide pension to an employee, who is not covered under rules. 51. In aforesaid background the Court takes note of nature of appointment of petitioners, i.e., admittedly on basis of a recommendation of Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services, the Corporation has created 135 posts of Assistant Regional Manager without any reference that said posts were the same which exist before Corporation came into existence under different nomenclature, i.e., Assistant Chief Manager as well as it was also not referred, whether the service conditions of said post would ipso facto applicable to said newly created posts and, therefore, an ambiguity remains. Petitioners have never tried to get the ambiguity cleared, though they remained in service for many years. 52. The Court also takes note that conditions of appointment of petitioners were that their services will be under the Rules or Regulations to be framed under Act, 1950. In appointment letters there was a reference that till regulations are not framed, their services will be governed by the rules applicable to U.P. Government Employees. 52. The Court also takes note that conditions of appointment of petitioners were that their services will be under the Rules or Regulations to be framed under Act, 1950. In appointment letters there was a reference that till regulations are not framed, their services will be governed by the rules applicable to U.P. Government Employees. Even at that stage, there is no reference of ‘pension’ since specific service rule was not mentioned in the conditions though it is absolutely clear that if subsequently the Corporation frames rules or regulations, the services of petitioners would be governed by said rules or regulations only. 53. The Corporation at first instance framed Rules, 1981 for employees and its Rule 39 relates to “pension and other retirement benefits” for employees of Corporation that they will not be entitled to pension except who was employee of the State Government in erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways and has opted the service of Corporation since their pension was protected by Government Order dated 05.07.1972. Here it is reiterated that petitioners/ officers entered in the service of Corporation in the year 1986 onwards. 54. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court also takes note that in the year 1998 UPSRTC framed Regulations, 1998 applicable to Officers of Corporation, i.e., applicable to petitioners also. The introduction of said Regulations specifically provides that it was in supersession of all existing regulations and orders on the subject matter and it was framed in exercise of powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 of Act, 1950, which grant power to the Corporation to make regulations for the condition of appointment and service. 55. The declaration made in very beginning of Regulations, 1998 provides that it was in supersession of all Government Orders on subject, therefore, it was in supersession of the Government Order dated 21.07.1972 also, therefore, benefit of it, if any, to service conditions of petitioners would come to an end when Regulations, 1998 came into existence. After enforcement of Regulations, 1998 the services of petitioners would govern by its regulations only and, therefore, in case said regulations provides provision of pension to services of petitioners, it would be granted, otherwise no pension can be granted. 56. After enforcement of Regulations, 1998 the services of petitioners would govern by its regulations only and, therefore, in case said regulations provides provision of pension to services of petitioners, it would be granted, otherwise no pension can be granted. 56. In above background, the Court also takes note that Regulation 2 of Regulations, 1998 provides that it would be applicable to officers appointed by Corporation on and after 01 st June, 1972, therefore, without any dispute and ambiguity, these regulations are applicable to the service conditions of the petitioners in its entirety. Here the Court also takes note that none of the provisions of Regulations, 1998 were challenged by petitioners either in first round or in present round of litigation. 57. Regulation 17 of Regulations, 1998 provides that the Board may decide as to type of provident fund to be established for welfare of officers. However, neither petitioners not respondents have brought on record that in pursuance of said Regulation the Board has taken a decision that petitioners who were appointed before said Regulation came into force would be entitled for pension, rather petitioners who have retired, have taken benefits of Contributory Fund Scheme, i.e., other than pension scheme. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that any specific scheme which could provide pension to petitioners is not in existence or framed in pursuance of Regulation 17 of Regulations, 1998. 58. The Court also takes note of Regulation 25 of Regulations, 1998, i.e., effect of enforcement of said Regulations. It provides that these Regulations shall apply to all Officers of Corporation who were in service of Corporation on the date of commencement of said Regulations and those who joined said service after such commencement. Since petitioners were admittedly in service of Corporation on the date of commencement of Regulations, 1998, therefore, also these Regulations shall apply to them. Clause (2) of Regulation 25 is also very relevant that Officers who were in service of Corporation when Regulations commenced, were under duty to give an undertaking within a month from the date of commencement of Regulations, 1998 that they have read and understood the regulations and accept the same. Neither petitioners nor respondents have come up with a case that petitioners have not given such undertaking since said clause further provides that in default of such undertaking, the Appointing Authority may consider termination of their employment. Neither petitioners nor respondents have come up with a case that petitioners have not given such undertaking since said clause further provides that in default of such undertaking, the Appointing Authority may consider termination of their employment. Therefore, petitioners are bound by provisions of Regulations, 1998. 59. On basis of above discussion, the Court is of the firm opinion that there is no specific provision subsequent to commencement of Regulations, 1998 that petitioners were entitled for pension. 60. The Court also carefully perused the resolutions adopted by Board of Directors of Respondent-Corporation. Firstly the resolution adopted in 220 th meeting on 25.01.2019 which is referred in para 19 of this judgment that prayer of petitioners for grant of pension was rejected on ground of financial strength of Respondent-Corporation that it was in loss. No legal provision or applicable regulations, was considered, discussed or taken note of while taking said decision. 61. Subsequently, the Board of Directors took a resolution dated 06.04.2023 wherein the nature of creation of 135 posts against whom petitioners were appointed as well as purport of Government Order dated 21.07.1972 as well as retrospective effect of Regulations, 1998 were taken note of including the conditions of appointment that appointments will be governed by any subsequent regulations framed and enforced. 62. The Board of Directors further amended said decision by a subsequent resolution dated 18.10.2023 wherein similar decision was taken that petitioners were not entitled for pension. The Court takes note that decision took by Board of Directors are not happily worded and creates some ambiguity. Though they have referred Regulation 25 read with Regulation 17 but it does not clearly stated that these regulations are of Regulations, 1998 and referred Rules, 1982, which probably have not much bearing on the claim of petitioners. However, one issue is very clear that service conditions of petitioners have to be dealt with only in terms of Regulations, 1998 which were enforced in supersession of all earlier orders. In this regard the Court takes note of amended agenda dated 27.06.2024 but here also the ambiguity remains same, except paras6 and 7 of it, which is reproduced hereinafter: 63. The outcome of above discussion is that: (A) Petitioners were appointed against newly created 135 posts of Assistant Regional Manager and their appointment letter has specific condition that their services will be governed by the regulations to be framed under Act, 1950. The outcome of above discussion is that: (A) Petitioners were appointed against newly created 135 posts of Assistant Regional Manager and their appointment letter has specific condition that their services will be governed by the regulations to be framed under Act, 1950. (B) Petitioners’ claim that benefit granted by Government Order dated 21.07.1972 that service conditions of officers appointed thereafter will always remain the same as granted to U.P. Government Employees, is not a correct proposition since not only there was a reference of above condition in appointment letter but subsequently Regulations, 1998 came into force as well as same nomenclature of post could not be a criteria to determine entitlement for pension. (C) The introduction of Regulations, 1998 specifically provides that it was in supersession of all earlier Government Orders issued on the subject, therefore, effect, if any, of Government Order dated 21.07.1972 came to end, when Regulations, 1998 were enforced and thereafter in terms of Regulations 17 and 25 the services of petitioners would be governed only by Regulations, 1998, which were accepted by them also. (D) Petitioners are not able to show that in terms of Regulation 17 of Regulations, 1998 the Respondent-Corporation has framed any regulation with regard to pension, whereas admittedly all petitioners are beneficiaries of Contributory Fund Scheme and after retirement they have received the due benefits also. (E) In pursuance of orders passed by this Court, repeated decisions were taken by Board of Directors and, as referred above, they may not be happily worded but it was a consistent decision that services of petitioners shall be governed by Regulations, 1998 once it was framed under the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 of Act, 1950. (F) The nature of communications of State Government has no statutory back up, therefore, they were not binding on the UPSRTC as well as only on ground of nomenclature of post or earlier also some similar post was created, would not negate the facts that 135 posts of Assistant Regional Manager were created in furtherance of recommendation of Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services and that petitioners’ appointments were subject to any subsequent service regulations, which were framed in the year 1998, which is now hold the field so far as service conditions of employment of petitioners is concerned. 64. 64. In aforesaid circumstances, discussions, analysis and it’s outcome as well as in absence of any specific provision of service regulation to grant pension to petitioners, the relief sought cannot be granted. The issue framed in para 46 of this judgment is answered accordingly. 63. The writ petition is dismissed. 64. No order as to costs.