SRI BHIM SIGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Sri Bhim Sigh And Others
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. -
(1.) APPELLANTS were employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh. By an order dated 1st May, 1981, the services of the appellants were merged with the services of the respondent University. By a subsequent order dated 2nd July, 1981, the State of Uttar Pradesh acknowledged that the services of the appellants stand merged with the services of the respondent University w.e.f. 1st May, 1981. According to Fundamental Rule 56(e), a government servant, on retirement, is entitled to pension in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant Rules and in the manner as provided thereunder. State of Uttar Pradesh made pension Rules and in those Rules, made it clear that in order to acquire a right to get pension, a government employee must serve the government at least for a period of 10 years. On 4th June, 1980, the government of Uttar Pradesh relaxed the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(e) in relation to those government employees whose services were or to be merged with the respondent University. In terms of Fundamental Rule 56(e), right to pension accrues only upon retirement and not upon services of a government employee being merged with a non - government institution. In order to give benefit of pension to those government employees, whose services were or to be merged with the respondent University, the said order dated 4th June, 1980 was issued, otherwise, despite having had served as a Uttar Pradesh State Government employee for a period in excess of pensionable period, such a merged employee would not get the benefit of pension in view of the mandate contained in Fundamental Rule 56 (e). None of the appellants completed pensionable service of minimum 10 years. They wanted pension on the strength of the said Uttar Pradesh government order dated 4th June, 1980. Surprisingly, however, appellants did not make government of Uttar Pradesh a party to the writ petition, who alone could be said to be obliged to pay pension. Making of Secretary, Higher Education, State of Uttar Pradesh and Director of Education as parties to the writ petition did not suffice. However, the fact remains that even on the basis of the said order dated 4th June, 1980, appellants were not entitled to any pension either at the time when they were merged with the respondent University or at any point of time subsequent thereto, inasmuch as, they admittedly did not complete the pensionable service with the government of Uttar Pradesh. What will happen to those government employees, whose services have been merged with the respondent University, but who have not served the government of Uttar Pradesh for the minimum pensionable period, had not been provided for in the said order dated 4th June, 1980. Taking into account the equity, to which the appellants are otherwise entitled to, and the spirit of the order dated 4th June, 1980, the writ petition of the appellants has been allowed by directing that the services rendered by them, while they were in service of the government of Uttar Pradesh, shall be added to pensionable service rendered in course of appointment with the respondent University upon the retirement of the appellants.
(2.) THE present appeal against the judgment and order under appeal is thoroughly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.