Allahabad High Court
Ratan Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:54177
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21643 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ratan Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Transport Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.
2. The short point for consideration in the instant writ petition is that whether the petitioner who was appointed in the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") between the period from 01.06.1972 to 19.06.1981 and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2000 is entitled for benefit of the Government order dated 20.10.2000, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition which provides for grant of pension to those persons who are appointed during the aforesaid period and were appointed on a pensionary post.
3. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order impugned dated 24.07.2017, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition primarily on two grounds namely (a) that the petitioner was working on a non pensionable post and (b) in terms of the Government order dated 20.10.2004 read with the office order of the Corporation dated 26.12.2005 those employees who were in receipt of pension from the Employees Provident Fund would not be entitled for pension.
4. So far as ground of rejection (b) is concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in the case of Mirza Athar Beg Vs. State of U.P and Ors passed in Writ Petition No. 7728 (SS) of 1996 decided on 25.08.2010 as upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation and Ors Vs. Mirza Athar Beg and Ors reported in (2013) 31 LCD 1702 has held that mere grant of pension from the Employees Provident Fund cannot be a ground for the Corporation to deny the pension to those who are admissible in terms of Government order dated 20.10.2004 and the said amount to be adjusted from the pension received. Thus, considering the judgment of this Court in the case of Mirza Athar Beg (supra) the ground (b) of rejection as finds placed in the impugned order dated 24.07.2017 is not tenable in the eyes of law and hence the said ground is rejected.
5. So far as ground (a) is concerned, a fair concession has been made by Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation that the post held by the petitioner was pensionable.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid fair concession even ground (a) of rejection would not be available to the respondents.
7. At this stage, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation states that as the Government order for pension was issued on October, 2004 and the petitioner filed writ petition only in the year 2014 consequently, he has to be considered as a fence sitter.
8. So far as the aforesaid argument of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation is concerned needless to mention that although the said ground has not been taken by the respondent-Corporation in the impugned order dated 24.07.2017 and consequently, cannot be permitted to be raised either by means of a counter affidavit or otherwise keeping in view the Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commission and Ors reported in AIR (1978) SC 851 apart from the fact that as the claim is for grant of pension as such, there would be recurring cause of action keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 and hence the said ground is rejected.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 24.07.2017, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside. The competent authority is required to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension in terms of the Government order dated 20.10.2004 as well as the Division Bench judgment in the case of Mirza Athar Beg (supra).
10. Let such a consideration be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
Pachhere/-
