Judiciary and Counsel Details
Augustine George Masih & Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the respondents were temporarily appointed to various posts under the Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana and were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund scheme under the U.P. Cane (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979, which applied to gazetted officers of the Cane Development Department. No separate rules existed for these temporary appointments. The respondents approached the High Court seeking pension at the same rate as permanent government employees. The High Court held that they were entitled to post-retirement benefits, including pension, treating their service as extending up to the age of 60.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court clarified that employees appointed under the scheme are governed by the same rules as regular government employees, as per the government’s conscious decision. Even though their salaries were managed under the scheme’s finances, they were entitled to retirement benefits. Arguments based on estoppel, acquiescence, or waiver were not applicable, as the respondents had withdrawn funds from the Contributory Provident Fund, and therefore did not benefit the appellants, since the respondents had no other option.
Finally, since the claim concerned a continuing wrong and did not affect third-party rights, the Supreme Court allowed the arrears of pension to be limited to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition or the date of attaining 60 years of age, whichever came earlier. This balanced approach ensured that the respondents received their rightful benefits while considering practical limitations on arrears.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Order of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in WP-352-2014, dated 18.05.2016 (para 20) modified.
- Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of Uttaranchal [ Civil Appeal No. 2511 of 2004]
- Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of Uttaranchal [Civil Appeal No.327 of 2014] (para 16) followed
- Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Nigam Limited v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal [2015] 12 SCC 51
- Union of India v. M. K. Sarkar 2009 taxmann.com 1974 (SC) (para 17)
- Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh 2006 taxmann.com 3117 (SC)
- Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2009 taxmann.com 1249 (SC) (para 18) distinguished
List of Cases Referred to
- Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of Uttaranchal [Writ Petition No. 348 of 2005, dated 9-11-2011] (para 5)
- Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of Uttaranchal [Civil Appeal No. 2511 of 2004] (para 5)
- Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of Uttaranchal Civil Appeal No. 327 of 2014, dated 10-1-2014] (para 6)
- Union of India v. M. K. Sarkar 2009 taxmann.com 1974 (SC) (para 17)
- Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Nigam Limited v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal [2015] 12 SCC 51 (para 17)
- Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh 2006 taxmann.com 3117 (SC) (para 18)
- Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2009 taxmann.com 1249 (SC) (para 18).
