# Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 74
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-11-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6104 of 2003
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40383
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Writ
Petition to quash impugned order passed
by Managing Director of Corporation
denying petitioner relief of inclusion of
period during which he worked as work
charge
employee
for
purposes
of
payment
of
pension-held,
petitioner
having opted for Employees Provident
Fund Scheme and having accepted the
amount under said scheme, cannot after
more than two decodes, be permitted to
switch over to pension scheme.

Held: Para 6

In the case of V.K. Ramamurthy vs.
Union of India (1997) 1 UPLBEC 439 the
Apex Court has held that once an
employee has opted for the Employees
Provident
Fund
Scheme
and
has
withdrawn the entire amount, then such
employee cannot be permitted to switch
over to the pension scheme. The ratio of
the said decision would squarely apply to
the facts of this case. The petitioner
herein having opted for the Employees
Provident Fund Scheme and having
accepted the amount under the said
scheme, cannot now, specially in this
case after more than two decades, be
permitted to switch over to the pension
scheme. The offer of refund of the
amount
already
paid
under
the
Employees Provident Fund Scheme also
cannot be accepted.
Case law discussed:
(1997) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 439 (SC)

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
74
appointment on compassionate ground,
cannot now be granted.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to cost.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6104 of 2003

Ram Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri O.N. Tripathi
Sri A.K. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.P.S. Niranjan
Sri C.P. Tripathi
Sri Sameer Sharma
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Writ
Petition to quash impugned order passed
by Managing Director of Corporation
denying petitioner relief of inclusion of
period during which he worked as work
charge
employee
for
purposes
of
payment
of
pension-held,
petitioner
having opted for Employees Provident
Fund Scheme and having accepted the
amount under said scheme, cannot after
more than two decodes, be permitted to
switch over to pension scheme.

Held: Para 6

In the case of V.K. Ramamurthy vs.
Union of India (1997) 1 UPLBEC 439 the
Apex Court has held that once an
employee has opted for the Employees
Provident
Fund
Scheme
and
has
withdrawn the entire amount, then such
employee cannot be permitted to switch
over to the pension scheme. The ratio of
the said decision would squarely apply to
the facts of this case. The petitioner
herein having opted for the Employees
Provident Fund Scheme and having
accepted the amount under the said
scheme, cannot now, specially in this
case after more than two decades, be
permitted to switch over to the pension
scheme. The offer of refund of the
amount
already
paid
under
the
Employees Provident Fund Scheme also
cannot be accepted.
Case law discussed:
(1997) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 439 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. I have heard Sri O.N.Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondents
and have perused the record. Counter and
rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged
and with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties this writ petition
has been heard and is being finally
disposed of at this stage.

2. It is the admitted case that the
petitioner retired from service in the year
1979. It was for the first time in the year
2001 he filed an application to the
respondent-authorities for inclusion of the
period during which he worked as a workcharge employee for the purposes of
payment
of
pension.
Thereafter
he
approached this Court by filing Civil
Misc. Writ petition No. 27784 of 2002
which was disposed of by this court on
23.7.2002
with
a
direction
to
the
Respondent-Corporation to decide his
representation
dated
8.11.2001,
in
accordance with law. By the impugned
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Ram Singh V. State of U.P. and others
75
order dated 30.11.2002 the representation
of the petitioner has been disposed of by
the Managing director of the Corporation
and the petitioner has been denied the
relief of inclusion of the period during
which
he
worked
as
work-charge
employee for the purposes of payment of
pension.

3. This writ petition has now been
filed with a prayer to quash the order
dated 30.11.2001 passed by Managing
Director, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Lucknow, Respondent no.2,
and also for a direction to the respondents
to compute the period of work-charge i.e.
from 1.10.1947 to 31.3.1961 for the
purposes of preparation of the pension of
the petitioner and make payment of
arrears
along
with
interest
to
the
petitioner.

4. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for
the petitioner, has not been able to point
out any legal ground on the basis of which
he claims that the said period should be
included for the purposes of payment of
pension to the petitioner. He merely relies
on the decision of the Labour Court in the
case of Jwala Dutt Tripathi where a
direction
had
been
issued
to
the
Respondent-Corporation to include the
period during which said Jwala Dutt
Tripathi worked as work-charge employee
for the purposes of payment of pension.

5. Sri Sameer Sharma, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents,
submitted
that
the
Corporation has only one scheme which is
Employees
Provident
Fund
Scheme.
However, before the Corporation came
into
existence,
the
State
Transport
Department had two schemes, namely,
Employees Provident Fund Scheme and
the pension scheme. During the period
when the petitioner worked as workcharge
employee
under
the
State
Transport Department, he had opted for
the Employees Provident Fund Scheme
and had also received the provident fund
for the said period. The said factual
position is not denied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. He has only
submitted that his client is prepared to
refund the entire amount of provident
fund which has been paid to him for the
period 1.10.1947 to 31.3.1961 and he
should be granted pension and the arrears
along with interest after including the said
period of 1.10.1947 to 31.3.1961 for the
said purposes.

6. In the case of V.K. Ramamurthy
vs. Union of India (1997) 1 UPLBEC
439 the Apex Court has held that once an
employee has opted for the Employees
Provident
Fund
Scheme
and
has
withdrawn the entire amount, then such
employee cannot be permitted to switch
over to the pension scheme. The ratio of
the said decision would squarely apply to
the facts of this case. The petitioner herein
having opted for the Employees Provident
Fund Scheme and having accepted the
amount under the said scheme, cannot
now, specially in this case after more than
two decades, be permitted to switch over
to the pension scheme. The offer of
refund of the amount already paid under
the Employees Provident Fund Scheme
also cannot be accepted.

7. For the foregoing reasons the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief. This
writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
76
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25950 of 2003

Govind Narayan Shukla
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Cooperation Societies Employees'
Service Regulation, 1975-Reg. 84 (1) (c)
to
(g),
87-Dismissal-Appointment
of
petitioner as clerk in District Cooperation
Federation in 1972-In 2002 he was
instructed
to
run
Wheat
Purchase
Centre-on certain irregularities being
found, order of dismissal passed by
Incharge
Secretary-Writ
against-held,
admittedly, order of dismissal from
service was passed under Regs. 84(1)
(e) to (g)-as such in absence of prior
concurrence of Board, held, no such
order could have been passed under Reg.
87 of 1975 Regulations-Since impugned
order
was
passed
in
violation
of
Regulations, same was liable to be set
aside.

Held: Para 4

Before going into the grounds raised
which
are
based
on
factual
controversies, I shall first consider this
case on its legal aspects. In the writ
petition a clear assertion has been made
that before passing of the impugned
order
of
dismissal
the
respondentauthorities had not obtained the prior
concurrence of the Board. There is no
specific denial of this assertion in the
counter affidavit. Admittedly the order of
dismissal from service has been passed
under Regulation 84 (1) (e) to (g) and as
such
in
the
absence
of
the
prior
concurrence of the Board no such order
could have been passed as provided
under
Regulation
87
of
1975
Regulations. Thus, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed only on this
ground as the order has been passed in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
the
Regulations.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioner was appointed as a
Clerk
in
the
District
Cooperative
Federation Ltd., Kanpur Nagar in the year
1972. Thereafter in the year 2002 he was
instructed to run Wheat Purchase Centre
at Rampur in Kanpur Nagar. On certain
irregularities having been found in the
working of the petitioner, the respondent
No. 5, Sushil Kumar Tiwari, who was the
Incharge
Secretary
of
the
District
Cooperative Federation Ltd., Kanpur
Nagar, passed order of dismissal of the
petitioner on 20.5.2003. Aggrieved by the
said order the petitioner has filed this writ
petition for quashing the dismissal order
dated 20.5.2003 as well as for a direction
to the respondents to treat the petitioner in
service and pay him his salary month by
month and also arrears of salary with
effect from 1.1.1993.

2. I have heard Sri M.P.Gupta,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner
and
Sri
Ashok
Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for
the
contesting
respondent-District
Cooperative Federation and have perused
the record.

3. The main grounds raised by the
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner