- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Surendra Prasad for the petitioner and Sri Sameer Sharma for the respondent Corporation.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Assistant Traffic Inspector in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways on 22-10-1963 and was made permanent with effect from 1-4-1972. He was sent on deputation to the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation where he was absorbed with effect from 28-7- 1982. He was granted various promotions and subsequently retired from the post of Traffic Superintendent on 31-7-1997. After retirement, he was granted pension vide order dated 10-9-1998 on the recommendation of the Corporation and was also paid the revised pension vide order dated 19-12- 2000. However, he was issued a show-cause notice on 16-6-2006 inter alia on the ground that he was not holding a pensionable post while in Government service and since all the post in the Corporation are non- pensionable, he was not entitled for payment of pension. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the Regional Manager cancelled the pension sanctioned to the petitioner vide his order dated 27-7-2006 on the ground that he was not holding a pensionable post on 27-7-1982. This order is impugned in the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that on the date of his absorption in the Corporation, the petitioner was holding a pensionable post and as such, the order is vitiated. The U. P. Government Roadways was a Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and was engaged in providing transport facilities. By a Government Order dated 28-10-1960, all posts of the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side were declared to be pensionable. The Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (here-in-after referred to as the Corporation) came into being with effect from 1-6-1972 in pursuance of Section 45 of the State Transport Act passed by the Parliament. On the creation of the Corporation, all the employees, including the petitioner, serving in U. P. Government Roadways were sent to the Corporation on deputation with a stipulation that service conditions of the employees of the U. P. Government Roadways would not be inferior in the Corporation. The Board of Directors of the Corporation passed a resolution on 3-3- 1978 upgrading the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 and placed it in the pay scale of Junior Station Incharge. Both the posts were made interchangeable vide notification dated 5-5-1978 and the Deputy General Manager was notified to be the common appointing authority for both. It is not denied that the petitioner remained an employee of U. P. Government Roadways till he was absorbed in the Corporation with effect from 28-7-1982. Regulation 39 of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (Employees other than Officers) Service Regulation, 1981 stipulates that only those employees of the erstwhile Government Roadways who held a pensionable posts prior to their absorption in the Corporation would be entitled to pension and none of the officers of the Corporation would be entitled to that benefit.
(3.) THE core issue thus is, whether the petitioner was holding a pensionable post prior to his absorption in the Corporation? A perusal of the notification dated 5-5-1978 shows that all the posts of Assistant Traffic Inspectors were upgraded to Traffic Inspection Grade-1 and were made interchangeable with the posts of Junior Station Incharge. On the said date the petitioner like all other Traffic Inspectors were thus upgraded to Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 and they were liable to be posted as Junior Station Incharge also. The effect was that the posts of Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 and Junior Station Incharge was integrated into a common cadre having one appointing authority i. e. the Deputy General Manager. However, Sri Sharma contends that the integration of the two posts were only for the sake of convenience and to streamline the work of the Corporation and it did not grant any benefit applicable to the post of Junior Station Incharge. The argument does not appear to be correct and is belied by the aforesaid notification itself. There is nothing in the notification to suggest even remotely that notwithstanding the integration, Traffic Inspectors would be deprived of any benefits arising thereof. No doubt the notification states that the arrangement could be withdrawn at any time but, there is nothing on record nor it has been argued at the bar that the said notification was ever withdrawn prior to the absorption of the petitioner in the Corporation. To the contrary, the petitioner was given the grade of the Junior Station Incharge vide order dated 24-5-1978. Further, vide resolution dated 30- 8-1979 the Corporation decided to transfer all those Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 who had completed the age of 52 years to the post of Junior Station Incharge and those Station Incharges who had not completed the age of 52 years, were transferred to the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-1. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the petitioner was entitled to all the benefits applicable to Junior Station Incharge. Even after the absorption of the petitioner with effect from 28-7-1982 the Corporation kept on taking action in consonance with the notification dated 5-5- 1978. The Corporation by its resolution dated 23-3-1985 held that the posts of Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 were redesignated as Traffic Inspector and simultaneously it resolved to abolish 193 posts of Traffic Inspector creating 150 posts of Junior Station Incharges. It further resolved that all the newly created 150 posts of Junior Station Incharges would be filled up from the Traffic Inspectors. In fact, all those Assistant Traffic Inspectors who were promoted to the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 in 1978 merged into the grade of Junior Station Incharges and all Junior Station Incharges appointed after 5-5-1978 were treated to be junior to them. Thus, the likes of the petitioner were even given seniority in the cadre of Station Incharge from 5-5-1978 itself.;