Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/247/2022 on 4 July, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS. No. 247 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional
C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel
for respondent no. 4.
Heard learned counsels for the
parties and perused the record.
According to petitioner, he was
appointed as Cleaner in erstwhile U.P.
State Roadways w.e.f. 01.01.1949. It is
further his case that he was confirmed
on the post of Cleaner w.e.f. 01.04.1956
and thereafter he was promoted as Fitter
on 01.04.1962. Ultimately, he retired on
31.05.1988 from the post of Mechanic,
after rendering 39 years of service.
It is not in dispute that U.P. State
Roadways was succeeded by a
Corporation, namely, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, which came into
existence in 1972. Thus, petitioner
served in the said Corporation between
1972 to 1988.
The reliefs clause of the writ
petition are extracted below:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to grant/release pension of the
petitioner from the date of his retirement
i.e. 31.05.1988 with interest, in the light of
order dated 10.01.2017 passed in Special
Appeal No.40 of 2014 and other connected
Special Appeals (contained in Annexure-8
to this writ petition).
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to grant arrear of pension,
from the date of retirement of the
petitioner till the date of actual payment, of
the petitioner is released with interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Division Bench of this Court
vide judgment dated 10.01.2017
rendered in SPA No. 40 of 2014 and
connected cases, has directed the
Corporation to examine claim of all such
employees for pension, who were
appointed prior to 1960.
Relevant extract of the said
judgment is reproduced below:-
"43. Therefore, having regard to the above
discussion, we dispose of the Appeals as
follows:
In Special Appeal Appeals Nos. 56 of
2014, 57 of 2014, 58 of 2014, 59 of
2014, 60 of 2014, 105 of 2014, 431 of
2015, 433 of 2015, 437 of 2015, 440 of
2015, 442 of 2015, 460 of 2015, 462 of
2015, 548 of 2015, as being cases of the
persons, who claim to be appointed prior
to 1960, we direct that the Corporation
will look into their records and ascertain
whether they are permanent employees in
terms of the 1960 orders and if they are
permanent employees in terms of the
Government Orders and as explained by
us, they will be granted pensionary
benefits on condition, of course, that they
will return benefits of Provident Fund,
which they already claimed and which was
disbursed to them. They will not be
entitled to interest as they are also
agreeable for amount being returned
without interest. They will also not be
liable to pay interest and they will also not
claim interest. This exercise should be
completed by the Corporation within a
period of four months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment. In Special Appeal No. 57 of
2014, the issue relates to the period a
little more than a year. Since he is
already being paid pension and only the
question is whether he is entitled to count
certain period, namely, period between
08.02.1951 to 21.07.1952, we direct that
the respondent will consider the same and
take a decision within a period of two
months and communicate the same to the
employee.
The other Appeals, which arises from
the judgment of Hon'ble Justice
Sudhanshu Dhulia, will stand dismissed.
The other Appeals by Mr. Arvind Vashisth
and Mr. Ashish Joshi will stand allowed
and the writ petitions will stand
dismissed. Appeal No. 57 of 2014 will
stand disposed of"
Thus, Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that since petitioner was also
appointed before 1960, therefore, his
case is also covered by the said
judgment. He further submits that since
petitioner was appointed in the year
1949 and his services were confirmed on
the post of Cleaner in 1956, therefore,
petitioner is also entitled for pension in
terms of aforesaid judgment rendered by
Division Bench of this Court.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2
- U.P.S.R.T.C., however, raised
preliminary objection regarding delay &
laches in filing writ petition.
Per contra, Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned
counsel for petitioner has referred to
penultimate para of letter dated
10.06.2021 issued by Regional Manager,
U.P.S.R.T.C., Bareilly, where it is
observed that since petitioner has not
filed any writ petition, therefore, his
claim for pension cannot be considered.
Thus, he submits that stand taken by the
Corporation is unsustainable in the eyes
of law, inasmuch as, if petitioner is
entitled to pension, as per the applicable
Scheme, than his claim ought to have
been considered, even without filing of
writ petition. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, further
submits that non-payment of pension to
an employee, who is otherwise eligible
for pension gives a recurring cause of
action, therefore, the question of delay &
laches would not be attracted in the
present case.
This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned counsel for
the petitioner. Non-payment of pension
to a person, who is otherwise eligible
therefor, gives a recurring cause of
action to the concerned person.
Moreover, it is the Corporation which has
refused to consider petitioner's claim for
pension on the ground that he has no
judicial order in his favour. Thus,
petitioner cannot be solely blamed for
the delay and laches.
In such view of the matter,
objection raised by learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 2 is
rejected.
In such view of the matter, since,
the facts of the case are identical to the
one decided by Division Bench of this
Court in SPA No. 40 of 2014 & other
connected cases, therefore, present writ
petition is also decided in terms of
aforesaid judgment dated 10.01.2017
rendered in SPA No. 40 of 2014 & other
connected cases.
Let necessary exercise be
undertaken by UP State Road Transport
Corporation, within eight weeks, strictly
in terms of the ratio of the aforesaid
judgment and appropriate order be
passed, within two weeks thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
04.07.2022
Aswal
