Supreme Court Denies Pension Claims
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways. They were covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and did not hold pensionable posts. They are not entitled to pension claims. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The court emphasised that pension is a constitutional right for employees upon superannuation. It can only be claimed under the relevant rules or a scheme. The bench stated, “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. Thus, directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules.”
Upon reviewing the relevant government orders, the court found that the appellant-employees did not hold any permanent or pensionable posts. They had already received retiral benefits. This is including those under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. Therefore could not later claim pensions.
Background:
UP Roadways was established in 1947 as a temporary department of the State Government to provide public transport. Employees were initially appointed on a temporary basis. A Government Order (GO) dated September 16, 1960, outlined the service conditions for Roadways employees, distinct from other government employees. Another GO on October 28, 1960, under Note 3 of Article 350 of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations, provided pensions for permanent Roadways employees.
When the UP State Roadways Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) was formed on June 1, 1972, a subsequent GO assured Roadways employees that their service conditions would not be inferior after absorption into the Corporation. Despite this assurance, the court noted that many employees, including the appellants, did not hold permanent posts qualifying them for pensions.
Court Observations:
The Supreme Court concluded that pension eligibility for Roadways employees was governed by the October 28, 1960 GO, which required them to hold permanent posts to qualify. The appellants failed to prove they were permanent employees as defined by the GO.
The court further stated that the appellants were not covered under Article 350, as Note 3 remained unamended, classifying Roadways as a Technical and Industrial Institution, thus excluding them from pension eligibility.
The court also dismissed the appellants’ reliance on Allahabad High Court decisions, noting that those cases involved employees holding permanent, pensionable posts, unlike the appellants.
Certain appeals by UPSRTC challenged a High Court ruling that extended pensionary benefits to employees promoted to pensionable posts after 1982. The Supreme Court ruled that employees not holding pensionable posts before their absorption into UPSRTC were not entitled to pensions, thereby setting aside the High Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that pensions can only be claimed by employees holding permanent, pensionable posts under the relevant rules or schemes. The ruling underscores the necessity for employees to establish their eligibility based on existing regulations.
