RESERVED
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2269 of 2006 (S/S)
Mohd. Ashfaq Siddiqui ........ Petitioner
Vs.
The Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C. ...... .....Opposite Parties.
Hon'ble B. K. Narayana, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Traffic Inspector in the
erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways on 30.11.1965, thereafter the petitioner
was posted on different posts and performed his duties in different capacities
during the period of his service as Assistant Traffic Inspector Grade-1/Junior
Station Incharge/Senior Station Incharge and eventually retired from the post
of Traffic Superintendent. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application
for grant of pension in the prescribed proforma through the competent
authority. Subsequently a letter was issued on 14.12.2001 (Annexure No. 6 to
this writ petition) by the Manager Pension to the Regional Manager,
U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow requiring the petitioner to complete certain formalities
so that his pension may be sanctioned. By the aforesaid letter, it was brought
on record that the service period of the petitioner from 05.05.1978 ot
30.09.2001 was pensionable and for the said period the share of the employer
(Corporation) was to be deposited by the department. Thereafter several
communications were exchanged between the authorities of the department
and ultimately the employer’s share was deposited on 26.06.2006 and thus,
all the required formalities for sanction/release of pension were completed but
opposite parties failed to sanction the pension and the other post retiral
benefits of the petitioner. Ultimately in respect of granting pension and other
post of retiral benefits to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 passed the
impugned order on 13.10.2005 declaring that the post which the petitioner
held was a non pensionable post and gratuity had been sanctioned treating
him to have worked on a non pensionable post. It is the order dated
13.12.2005 passed by the respondent, which is impugned in the instant writ
petition.
The opposite parties filed their counter affidavit disputing the petitioner’s
claim for grant of pension on the ground that prior to the date of amalgamation
2
/ enforcement of U.P. State Roadway Organisation (Abolition of Posts and
Absorption of Employees Rules (1982) the petitioner had not worked on the
post of Junior Station Incharge and the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on
which he was working was a non-pensionable post and as such the petitioner
was not entitled to pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar objection as
the one raised by the Corporation in the instant writ- petition was raised by the
corporation justifying its decision to deny pension to similarly placed Traffic
Inspectors as the petitioner was considered and rejected by this Court in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 44772 of 2006, Ram Singh Singraur and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2007 (3) LBESR 47 (All) and
since the claim of the petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid decision, the
petitioner is also entitled to be the same benefit which has been granted to the
petitioners of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 44772 of 2008.
Learned counsel appearing for the corporation made a feeble attempt to
argue that the ratio rendered in the case of Ram Singh Singraur and others
(supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case but upon going through
the aforesaid decision, the pleading of the parties and the documents on
record, this court is of the view that the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner are correct and the contentions raised by learned counsel for
the corporation have no force and are liable to be rejected.
This Court while considering an identical issue in the case of Ram
Singh Singraur (supra), observed as under in paragraph nos. 4 to 11 of the
judgement given in the said case:-
” 4. 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
3stipulation 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.
5. The core issue thus is, whether the petitioner was holding a
pensionable post prior to his absorption in the Corporation?
6. 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
4
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.
7. It is then urged on behalf of the Corporation that the
notification dated 5.5.1978 cannot be said to have amended the
Government Order dated 28.10.1960 and the petitioner remained
a government servant till his absorption and thus Corporation
could not have changed the service conditions of such
employees. He has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of
this Court rendered in the case of Jagdish Prasad Gupta and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others [1980 (VI) A.L.R. 81.]
5
8. A perusal of the decision in Jagidish Prasad’s case would
show that the issue in consideration before the Division Bench
was as to whether a claim petition lay before the Public Service
Tribunal under U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 with
regard to challenge of termination of Government Roadways
Employees on deputation to the Corporation. The Division Bench
held that prior to absorption of such Government Roadways
Employees in the Corporation, he remained a government
servant and as such the claim petition under the U.P. Public
Services Tribunal Act, 1976 would be maintainable before the
Tribunal. This case does not help the cause of the Corporation.
After the petitioner was placed in deputation in the Corporation,
the Corporation became entitled to regulate, control and
supervise the work of the deputees. The Corporation has failed to
point out any law disabling the Corporation from changing the
service conditions of the deputationist. The only bar imposed was
that in no case the conditions of service of the deputationist
would in any way be inferior to those which were applicable
under the U.P. Government Roadways. The Government Order
dated 28.10.1960 categorically states that the supervisory staff of
the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side
would be admitted to pension. The Corporation by its
notification dated 5.5.1978 upgraded the post of Assistant Traffic
Inspector to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 and integrated
the said post in the post of Junior Station Incharge and thus the
post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 became equivalent in rank to
the post of Junior Station Incharge. Once the two posts were
integrated into a common cadre with the same pay scale and
common appointing authority, it cannot be said that the post of
Traffic Inspector Grade-1 was in any way inferior in rank to that
of Junior Station Incharge. If the argument of the Corporation
were to be accepted, it would lead to absurd results because if a
member of the cadre was absorbed in the Corporation while
working as a Junior Station Incharge he would be admitted to
pension but if he is absorbed from the post of Traffic Inspector
Grade-II he would be denied the said benefit.
6
9. It is then urged that in fact the petitioner never worked on the
post of Junior Station Incharge, therefore, they were not entitled
to pension.
10. The worth of the argument has already been commented
upon, but let us examine it a bit further.
11. It is common ground that the provision for pension to the
employees of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways is
covered by the Government Order dated 28.10.1960. The
relevant category (b) states that ” the supervisory staff to the
rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side”
would be entitled for pension. It does not speak about ‘post’ of
Junior Incharge but ‘rank’ of Junior Station Incharge. Argument
of the Corporation implies that until and unless a person holds
the post of Junior Station Incharge, he would not be entitled to
pension. The argument does not appear to be correct. The words
‘post’ and ‘rank’ have a very different meaning in service
jurisprudence. The Apex Court in the Case of N.C. Dalwadi Vs.
State of Gujarat (AIR 1987 S.C. 1933) while considering a case
of compulsory retirement of a Superintendent Engineer had an
occasion to decipher the meaning of the word ‘rank’ and gave it
its ordinary meaning as “grade or status”. Further, the Apex
Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab (AIR
1995 S.C. 1371) while considering the question of relevant ‘post’,
found that the “word post means the appointment, job, office or
employment……..” Therefore, also it would be irrelevant whether
or not the petitioner actually worked as Junior Station Incharge.
Once the Corporation has upgraded the post of Traffic Inspector
Grade-1 to the rank of Junior Station Incharge, they would be
entitled to the benefit of the said Government Order dated
28.10.1960. The Court has already noted above that the two
posts had been integrated into a common cadre and made
interchangeable which was followed subsequently. ”
7
After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record, this court is of the view that the the
decision of this Court in the case of Ram Singh Singraur (supra) applies with
full force to the facts of the present case and the petitioner is entitled to the
same benefit which has been granted to the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 44772 of 2006 Ram Singh Singraur’s (supra) case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
13.12.2005 passed by Additional Managing Director, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Lucknow is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are
directed to pay the entire arrears of pension to the petitioner together with
interest @ 6% per annum within a period of 6 months from today and to pay
his pension regularly.
Dt. 22.01.2010
Y.K.