Mamchand Singh and 5 Ors v. State of U.P. Through Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and Ors

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3076 of 2014 Petitioner :- Mamchand Singh And 5 Ors. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1796 of 2014 Petitioner :- Pratap Babu Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Transport Lko. And Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg,Ghaus Beg Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1909 of 2014 Petitioner :- Hari Nath Tewari Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Its Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lko.And Chandra\ Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1963 of 2014 Petitioner :- Hari Narain Pandey Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2014 of 2014 Petitioner :- Jaswant Singh Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2114 of 2014 Petitioner :- Mohammad Rasheed Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg,Ghaus Beg Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2116 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ram Shankar Mishra Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg,Anuja Bajpai,Ghaus Beg Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2117 of 2014 Petitioner :- Devi Dutt Shukla Chandra\ Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2118 of 2014 Petitioner :- Mohammad Islam Khan And Another Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2123 of 2014 Petitioner :- Roadwayas Pensioners Association U.P. Thru Its General Secy. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lucknow And Ors Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2153 of 2014 Petitioner :- Asha Ram Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Its Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lko.And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2259 of 2014 Petitioner :- Mushequr Rehman Siddiqui Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg,Ghaus Beg Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2332 of 2014 Petitioner :- Narendra Singh Gaur Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2451 of 2014 Petitioner :- Altaful Hasan Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Its Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg,Ghaus Beg Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Shekhar Pandey,Chandra Shekher Pandey,Ratnesh Chandra Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2570 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ram Jus Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Road Transport Corp. Through Manager Director Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhola Singh Patel,Alok Kumar,Guru Sharan Lal Verma,Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,Praveen Kumar Verma,Pravin Kumar Verma,Satyendra Nath Pandey,Vibhu Shankar,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Chandra Shekhar Pandey,Chandra Shekher Pandey,Puneet Kumar Sharma,Ratnesh Chandra Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2760 of 2014 Petitioner :- Kiran Devi Sharma Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2763 of 2014 Petitioner :- Viqar Ahamed Khan Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2765 of 2014 Petitioner :- Amanatullah Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2775 of 2014 Petitioner :- Mahabir Prasad Tiwari Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2796 of 2014 Petitioner :- Pratap Singh And 12 Ors. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Shekhar Pandey,Chandra Shekher Pandey Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2798 of 2014 Petitioner :- Shaukat Ali And 12 Ors. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Shekhar Pandey,Chandra Shekher Pandey Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2815 of 2014 Petitioner :- Raees Ahmad Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3107 of 2014 Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh Saini And 7 Ors. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3173 of 2014 Petitioner :- Buddh Prakash Bhama And 16 Ors. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3220 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Sagheer-Un-Nisa Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3222 of 2014 Petitioner :- Manohar Babu Sharma And 14 Ors. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Shekhar Pandey\ Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3261 of 2014 Petitioner :- Sudesh Kumar And 17 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Deptt. Of Transort Lko. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3262 of 2014 Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Sharma And 19 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Deptt. Of Transort Lko. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3405 of 2014 Petitioner :- Siya Ram Singhal And 4 Ors. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3480 of 2014 Petitioner :- Kashmiri Devi Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3560 of 2014 Petitioner :- Anis Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Shekhar Pandey,Chandra Shekher Pandey Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4608 of 2014 Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh And 12 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg,Ghaus Beg Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4676 of 2014 Petitioner :- Shripati Sahaya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.S.Pandey Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4958 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Shanti Devi Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5254 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ratan Lal And 6 Ors. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5255 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Raj Bala And 3 Ors. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5257 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Birma Devi Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5258 of 2014 Petitioner :- Nawab Singh And 3 Ors. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5369 of 2014 Petitioner :- Nanak Chand Kaushik Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5628 of 2014 Petitioner :- Omkar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lko.And Others Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6731 of 2014 Petitioner :- Suraj Bhan Sharma And 4 Ors. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6733 of 2014 Petitioner :- Singhram Singh Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6885 of 2014 Petitioner :- Brij Kishore Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Transport And Ors.. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6941 of 2014 Petitioner :- Omveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lko. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7109 of 2014 Petitioner :- Mohammad Rafique Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lko. And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg,Ghaus Beg Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7184 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ram Lautan Gupta Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg,Ghaus Beg Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7292 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Mahandri Devi And 6 Ors. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7540 of 2014 Petitioner :- Abdul Haque Case :- WRIT - A No. - 491 of 2015 Petitioner :- Smt. Sarla Sharma Case :- WRIT - A No. - 570 of 2015 Petitioner :- Gopi Krishna Mehrotra Case :- WRIT - A No. - 808 of 2015 Petitioner :- Krishna Dutt Case :- WRIT - A No. - 810 of 2015 Petitioner :- Harbeer Singh Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1176 of 2015 Petitioner :- Tejveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lko. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4706 of 2017 Petitioner :- S.M. Fazil Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lucknow And Others Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27312 of 2017 Petitioner :- Prahlad Narayan Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Civil Sectt.Andors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,Akhter Abbas,Ratnesh Chandra Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28475 of 2017 Petitioner :- Saleem Akhtar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Transport Deptt.Lko. And Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh,Jai Narayan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Petitioner :- Rama Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Transport, Govt. U.P. Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Roshan Dubey,Ghanshyam Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶1Heard Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4.

¶2Learned counsel for the parties contends that the issue involved in these writ petitions are the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear all the writ petitions together. For convenience, facts of WRIT - A No - 3076 of 2014 are being taken.

¶3The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is regarding admissibility of pension. It is submitted that the petitioners were initially the employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh and were working under transportation department of Government of Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, the State of Uttar Pradesh started operating transport service in the name of Uttar Pradesh State Roadways and commenced commercial operation of bus service. Subsequently the State of Uttar Pradesh created Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.S.R.T.C.) to look after the transport needs of the State and the employees like petitioners and others working under the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways were sent on deputation to the newly created U.P.S.R.T.C. The dispute in the present case is as to whether persons who are employees of Government of Uttar Praesh and whose services were subsequently transferred to U.P.S.R.T.C. would be entitled for the benefit of pension on their attaining the age of superannuation.

¶4The claim of the petitioners were duly considered by U.P.S.R.T.C. and by means of impugned order dated 18.03.2014 their claim was rejected on the ground that the petitioners were appointed prior to issuance of government order dated

28.10.1960 in the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Roadways but were declared confirmed / permanent employees only after the said government order. The second ground was that Regulation 39 of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations 1981) are not applicable after enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh State Organization (Abolition of Posts and Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1982). Lastly, it was stated that the petitioners case was not covered by judgement and order of this Court dated 29.11.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 813 of 2010 in re: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Mirza Athar Beg and others.

¶5Assailing the impugned order it has vehemently been submitted by Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioners that considering the provisions of Article 350 of U.P. Civil Service Regulations, Regulation 39 of the Regulations 1981 as well as the government order issued in this regard clearly demonstrate that the petitioners are entitled for pension on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶6It has been jointly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents that the controversy in question stand settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.07.2024 in the case of U.P. Roadways Retired Officials an Officers Association vs State of U.P. an others passed in Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2020.

¶7This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association (supra).

¶8This Court is of the view that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Roadways Retired Officials an Officers Association (supra) had also considered the issue pertaining to admissibility of pension to the petitioners therein who are similarly circumstanced as the petitioners in the present writ petitions. Paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgement would clearly indicate that Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the aspect of admissibility of pension to the petitioners therein. While deciding the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of government orders dated 01.06.1972 and

05.07.1972 as well as Article 350 U.P. Civil Services Regulations, especially Note 3.

¶9Further even the provisions of Regulations 39 of Regulations 1981 have duly been considered before arriving at the conclusion recorded in paragraph 49 of the aforesaid judgement, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below: "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."

¶10Accordingly, this Court is of considered view that once the matter has been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Roadways Retired Officials an Officers Association (supra) and all relevant rules and statutory provisions have been considered, there is no scope for taking any other view than as has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court and accordingly the present bunch of writ petitions wherein similar issue regarding admissibility of pension has arisen are decided in terms of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.

¶11In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petitions and the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Roadways Retired Officials an Officers Association (supra) would govern the case of the petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions also.

¶12Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions are dismissed. Order Date :- 1.10.2024 J. K. Dinkar (Alok Mathur, J) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench