# Shakuntala Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 54211 of 2016
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shakuntala-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44846
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

A. Service Law- Pension - Uttar Pradesh
Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973:
Sections 5(1), 5-A, 24, 55, 56, 59(4); Uttar
Pradesh Development Authorities Centralized
Services Retirement Rules, 2011: Rule 1(iii), 4,
7, 16, 21, 30; U.P. Development Authorities
Centralized Services Rules, 1985: Rules 3, 34,
37; Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralized) Services
Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981: Rules 7, 37.

Government
Orders
pertaining
to
pension/family pension applicable to
Government
Servants
would
automatically apply to the members of
the Centralized Services of Development
Authority - Joint reading of Rule 4 and 7 of
the U.P. Development Authorities (Centralized
Services) Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011
along with Section 24 of Development Act,
1973 makes it evident that the rules/orders
applicable to the employees of the State
Government and the formula for computation
of pension and family pension would apply by
reference
to
the
employees
of
the
Development Authority. (Para 40)

B. Legislation by incorporation and
legislation by reference - There is a
distinction
between
legislation
by
incorporation and that by reference inasmuch
as in the latter case the amendments made in
the earlier legislation would be applicable to
the referring legislation. The Retirement
Benefit Rules, 2011 makes applicable the
Government Orders insofar it relates to
pension/family pension, by reference. The
subsequent amendments made thereto would
therefore also apply. (Para 43)

The Development Authority has not, and
cannot, adopt a formula other than that
applicable to the government servants
while computing pension and family
pension
of
its
employees.
The
Development Authority lacks the power of
authority to override, deviate or rewrite the
Rules framed by the State Government
governing
and
regulating
pension/family
pension. (Paras 48, 49)

C. Development Authority does not
require
any
approval
of
the State
Government
before
the
recommendations of the respective Pay
Commissions are made applicable to the
government servants through various
Government
Orders
-
Development
Authority constituted under the Development
Act, 1973 is an autonomous body. The State
Government does not fund the Development
Authorities. The Retirement Benefit Rules,
2011, nowhere prohibits the Development
Authorities
from
implementing
the
Government Orders without the prior approval
of the State Government. Rather, the Rule
mandates
that
the
Government
Orders,
pertaining to pension/family pension issued in
respect
of
Government
Servants
gets
applicable and enforced upon the employees
of the Development Authority by operation of
law, no further act of approval is required at
the end of the State Government or the
resolution of the Development Authority.
(Paras 53, 55)

D. The test for a valid classification may
be summarized as a distinction based on
a classification founded on an intelligible
differentia,
which
has
a
rational
relationship with the object sought to be
achieved - It is not open for the Authorities
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to distinguish between the retirees only on the
basis of the date of the retirement by fixing an
artificial cut-off date not founded on an
intelligible differentia so as to distinguish
persons that are grouped together. All
pensioners are eligible to receive revised
family pension based on the formula approved
by the State Government. Conversely, it is
always open for the State Government to
decide uniformly for government servants and
other employees of the Local Bodies and the
Development Authorities, the date from which
beneficial provision in the Government Order
would apply so long as the treatment is equal
and uniform. No relief can be given beyond
what is conferred by the Government Order.
 (Paras 64, 67, 70)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,866 of 82,655. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39866 for what follows._

3 All. Shakuntala Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
249
(2019)11ILR A249

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR , J.

Writ A No. 54211 of 2016

Shakuntala Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Samir Sharma, Sri Satyendra Singh,
Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sri Prakash Singh, Sri Abhinav
Ojha, Sri Rajmani Yadav.

A. Service Law- Pension - Uttar Pradesh
Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973:
Sections 5(1), 5-A, 24, 55, 56, 59(4); Uttar
Pradesh Development Authorities Centralized
Services Retirement Rules, 2011: Rule 1(iii), 4,
7, 16, 21, 30; U.P. Development Authorities
Centralized Services Rules, 1985: Rules 3, 34,
37; Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralized) Services
Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981: Rules 7, 37.

Government
Orders
pertaining
to
pension/family pension applicable to
Government
Servants
would
automatically apply to the members of
the Centralized Services of Development
Authority - Joint reading of Rule 4 and 7 of
the U.P. Development Authorities (Centralized
Services) Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011
along with Section 24 of Development Act,
1973 makes it evident that the rules/orders
applicable to the employees of the State
Government and the formula for computation
of pension and family pension would apply by
reference
to
the
employees
of
the
Development Authority. (Para 40)

B. Legislation by incorporation and
legislation by reference - There is a
distinction
between
legislation
by
incorporation and that by reference inasmuch
as in the latter case the amendments made in
the earlier legislation would be applicable to
the referring legislation. The Retirement
Benefit Rules, 2011 makes applicable the
Government Orders insofar it relates to
pension/family pension, by reference. The
subsequent amendments made thereto would
therefore also apply. (Para 43)

The Development Authority has not, and
cannot, adopt a formula other than that
applicable to the government servants
while computing pension and family
pension
of
its
employees.
The
Development Authority lacks the power of
authority to override, deviate or rewrite the
Rules framed by the State Government
governing
and
regulating
pension/family
pension. (Paras 48, 49)

C. Development Authority does not
require
any
approval
of
the State
Government
before
the
recommendations of the respective Pay
Commissions are made applicable to the
government servants through various
Government
Orders
-
Development
Authority constituted under the Development
Act, 1973 is an autonomous body. The State
Government does not fund the Development
Authorities. The Retirement Benefit Rules,
2011, nowhere prohibits the Development
Authorities
from
implementing
the
Government Orders without the prior approval
of the State Government. Rather, the Rule
mandates
that
the
Government
Orders,
pertaining to pension/family pension issued in
respect
of
Government
Servants
gets
applicable and enforced upon the employees
of the Development Authority by operation of
law, no further act of approval is required at
the end of the State Government or the
resolution of the Development Authority.
(Paras 53, 55)

D. The test for a valid classification may
be summarized as a distinction based on
a classification founded on an intelligible
differentia,
which
has
a
rational
relationship with the object sought to be
achieved - It is not open for the Authorities
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to distinguish between the retirees only on the
basis of the date of the retirement by fixing an
artificial cut-off date not founded on an
intelligible differentia so as to distinguish
persons that are grouped together. All
pensioners are eligible to receive revised
family pension based on the formula approved
by the State Government. Conversely, it is
always open for the State Government to
decide uniformly for government servants and
other employees of the Local Bodies and the
Development Authorities, the date from which
beneficial provision in the Government Order
would apply so long as the treatment is equal
and uniform. No relief can be given beyond
what is conferred by the Government Order.
 (Paras 64, 67, 70)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patialia
Vs Mangal Singh and others, (2011) 11 SCC
702 (Para 41)

2. Union of India Vs. Charanjeet S. Gill, (2000)
5 SCC 742 (Para 42)

3. Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs
JCS Bora, (2014) 8 SCC 644 (Para 42)

4. Bajaya Vs Gopikabai, (1978) 2 SCC 542 (Para 44)

5. Western Coalfields Limited Vs Special Area
Development Authority, Korba, (1982) 1 SCC
125 (Para 44)

6. Chandra Pal Singh and others Vs State of
U.P. through Principal Secretary Housing Civil
Secretariat & others (Service

7. Bench No. 12645 of 2016 decided on 16
March 2018) (Para 67)

8. Shivashray Rai and others Vs State of U.P.
through Principal Secretary Housing Civil
Secretariat (Service Single No. 9033 of 2016
decided on 16.08. 2017) (Para 67)

9. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary
Housing Civil Secretariat Vs Shivashray Rai
and others (decided on 26.11.2018) (Para 67)
10. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Preetam Singh
and others, (2014) 14 SCC 774 (Para 54)

11. M.P. Tandon, Allahabad Vs State of U.P.,
Lucknow and others, 1984 (10) ALR 185 (Para
60)

12. Deoki Nandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar,
AIR 1971 SC 1409 (Para 61)

13. State of Punjab Vs Iqbal Singh, AIR 1976
SC 667 (Para 61)

14. FCI Vs Ashis Kumar Ganguly and others,
(2009) 7 SCC 734 (Para 62)

15. All Manipur Pensioners Association through
its Secretary Vs The State of Manipur and
others (Civil Appeal No. 10857 of 2016
decided on 11 July 2019) (Para 63)

16. D.S. Nakara and others Vs Union of India,
(1983) 1 SCC 305 (Para 65)

17. D.D. Tewari Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran
Nigam Ltd., (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) (Para 72)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J. )

1. Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Satyendra
Singh, learned counsels for the petitioner,
Shri Sri Prakash Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the fifth respondent and
Shri Abhinav Ojha, learned counsel
appearing for the Allahabad Development
Authority and the learned Senior Counsel
for the state respondents.

2. The petitioner, primarily seeks a
direction in the nature of mandamus,
commanding the respondents to compute
her pension/family pension admissible her
as per the Government Orders applicable
to the Government Servants, issued from
time to time.

3. The facts that emerge from the
pleadings and averments of the learned
3 All. Shakuntala Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251
counsel for the parties, briefly stated, is
that the husband of the petitioner, Shri
Surendra Singh, a member of the
Development
Authorities
Centralized
Services1 of the Development Authority,
retired
on
attaining
the
age
of
superannuation on 30 September 2001,
from the post of Chief Engineer at
Allahabad
Development
Authority2
(presently,
''Prayagraj
Development
Authority'). The employee rendered 24
years 5 months and 5 days qualifying
service. The last basic salary drawn by the
employee was at Rs. 16,300/- in the payscale 14300-400-18300.

4. Pursuant to Government Orders
dated 17 March 1983 and 29 September
1983, the employees of the Centralized
Services
retiring
from
Development
Authorities were paid pension at par with
Government Servants until 4 April 1999.
The State Government vide Government
Order dated 5 April 1999, withdrew the
pension
of
the
employees
of
the
Development Authorities. Aggrieved, the
association of pensioners challenged the
Government Order in Praveen Kumar
Agrawal vs. State of U.P.3, decided on
20 November 2010.

5.

The
Court
quashed
the
Government Order dated 5 April 1999.
The operative portion of the order reads
thus:

"A writ in the nature of
certiorari
is
issued
quashing
the
impugned order dated 5.4.1999 and
9.11.2004 with consequential benefits. A
writ in the nature of mandamus is issued
commanding the opposite parties to
ensure the payment of regular pension to
the
petitioners
and
other
similarly
situated
employees
forthwith
in
accordance with Rules applicable to
Government employees. Let decision be
taken in pursuance of the observations
made in the body of the present judgment
expeditiously say, within three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order. Respondents shall also
ensure the payment of arrears of salary
expeditiously say, within six months. "

6.

Consequently,
the
State
Government
in
exercise
of
powers
conferred under Section 55 read with
Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Planning
and
Development Act, 19734, framed the
Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities
Centralized Services Retirement Rules,
20115. In compliance of the judgment
and pursuant to Sub-clause (iii) of Rule 1
of the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011,
Government Order dated 22 December
2011, came to be issued by the State
Government conferring pension to all the
employees
of
the
Development
Authorities, including those, who retired
prior to the commencement of the
Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011.

7. Pursuant to the Government Order
and Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011,
husband of the petitioner made an
application on 6 February 2012, in the
prescribed proforma for computation of
his pension. However, died on 29 July
2012, before the pension could be
sanctioned. After the death of her
husband, petitioner applied for arrears of
pension
and
family
pension.
The
respondent authorities kept the matter
pending. The fourth respondent, Finance
Controller,
Allahabad
Development
Authority, for the first time on 19
December 2015 sent the Pension Pay
Order (PPO) to the office of the fifth
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent, Finance Controller, Lucknow
Development Authority for approval. It
appears that the PPO came to be rejected
by the fifth respondent. The fourth
respondent again on 17 March 2016
prepared a PPO which was sent to the
fifth respondent for approval which again
came
to
be
returned/rejected
with
objections on 10 June 2016 stating therein
that the family pension of the petitioner
was wrongly computed. In the meantime,
the State Government and other Local
Bodies
including
the
Development
Authorities, accepted and implemented
the recommendations of the 6th Pay
Commission.
Accordingly,
petitioner
apprised the fourth respondent to compute
the family pension in the light of
Government Orders dated 8 December
2008 read with 21 January 2016. It
appears that nothing was done by the
respondent
authorities
despite
the
petitioner being made to run from post to
pillar. Finally, petitioner lodged a formal
complaint before the third respondent,
Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development
Authority. It appears, thereafter, the
fourth respondent vide communication
dated 6 September 2016 computed the
pension of the husband of the petitioner at
Rs. 13677/- plus dearness allowance and
family pension at Rs. 11052/- plus
dearness allowance.

8. The harassment of the petitioner at
the hands of the respondent authorities
did not end there, the PPO dated 17
March 2016, which came to be rejected
earlier was approved by the fifth
respondent vide communication dated 6
September 2016. Accordingly, the bank
was informed vide communication/order
dated 26 September 2016. It is urged that
authorities to further harass the petitioner
had deliberately referred the family
pension as ''basic retirement pension' and
petitioner was referred to as ''retired Chief
Engineer' in the communication issued to
the
bank.
Consequently,
the
bank
declined to honour the communication in
view of the blatant errors. According to
the petitioner it was wilful and deliberate.
It is urged that even after filing the instant
writ petition in November 2016, the
alleged mistakes was not rectified,
consequently, the petitioner did not
receive family pension. It was on the
intervention of this Court that the arrears
of pension was paid to her but the
communication to the bank was not
rectified/corrected, petitioner, therefore,
was not receiving pension on month to
month basis.

9. That apart the, primary grievance
of the petitioner is that while computing
the pension and family pension, the
respondent authorities have not followed
the computation tabulation provided in
the Government Orders issued since 8
December 2008 until 21 January 2016.
According to the petitioner revised basic
pension of her husband is required to be
computed at Rs. 23050, and the revised
basic family pension at Rs. 13830 upon
implementation
of
the
6th
Pay
Commission recommendations w.e.f. 1
January 2006 by the State Government.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop,
petitioner primarily seeks the following
reliefs:

" i. Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing clause-6 of the
Government Order dated 5 July 2016
(Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) so
far as it denies the payment of arrears of
revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to the
late husband of the petitioner.
3 All. Shakuntala Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253

ii. issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus
commanding
upon
the
respondents to disburse all the benefits
engrafted in the Government Order dated
5.7.2016, including the arrears of the
pension payable to the late husband of the
petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.2001 along with
12% interest forthwith.

iii. Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents
to re-determine and pay the pension of
the petitioner strictly in accordance with
the Government Order dated 21.1.2016
issued by the State Government along
with 12% interest."

11. It is urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the husband of the
petitioner was a member of the Centralized
Services, he retired from the post of Chief
Engineer in 2001. After promulgation of
Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, husband of
the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to
pension/and family pension, respectively as
per
Government
Orders.
Under
the
Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, read with
the Government Orders issued from time to
time, the employees of the Centralized
Services are entitled to pension at par with
the Government Servants, including, revised
pension pursuant to the recommendations of
the respective Pay Commissions. It is
contended
that
the
respondents
have
arbitrarily
not
computed/revised
the
pension/family pension of the petitioner
pursuant
to
the
formula/computation
provided by the Government orders duly
accepted
and
notified
by
the
State
Government.

12. It is further urged that it is
admitted by the respondents that the
recommendations
of
the
Pay
Commissions (VI and VII) have been
duly applied to the employees of the
Development Authorities in the State of
Uttar Pradesh. It is not being disputed by
the respondents that employees of the
Centralized Services retiring as on date
are receiving pension computed as per the
recommendations
of
the
7th
Pay
Commission. In view thereof, it is urged
that the employees, who retired earlier
cannot be discriminated, being members
of the same pension scheme, hence, are
entitled
to
revised
pension.
The
respondents cannot create a class within a
class of pensioners, who stand on equal
footing in the common pension scheme
that came to be implemented in 2011 and
is applicable uniformly to all the
pensioners including those, who retired
prior to the promulgation of Retirement
Rules, 2011. Accordingly, it is submitted
that petitioner is entitled to revised
pension computed and implemented at
par with State Government employees.

13. In rebuttal, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the first and second
respondent,
and
learned
counsels
appearing for the third, fourth and fifth
respondents submit that Development
Authorities are autonomous bodies and
the Government Orders issued from time
to time pertaining to salary and pension
are not automatically applicable upon the
employees
of
the
Development
Authorities. It is upon adoption of the
Government
Orders
by
respective
Development Authorities, the employees
are entitled to pension/family pension.
The Development Authorities are not
bound to accept the Government Orders
in totally issued intermittently revising
the
family
pension,
including,
computation formula thereof. It is open to
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the respective Development Authority,
depending upon the financial capacity to
partially adopt the Government Order.

14. Learned counsel appearing for
the third, fourth and fifth respondents
submit that the Development Authority
has not revised the pension and family
pension of retirees and they continue to
receive
the
pension
plus
dearness
allowance that they were entitled to at the
time of retirement or upon the death of
the employee. The approval and sanction
of the State Government with regard to
revised pension/family pension pursuant
to the recommendation of the 7th Pay
Commission is pending with the State
Government. It is accordingly urged that
the petition lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

15. Rival submissions falls for
consideration.

16. The point for determination is (i)
whether
the
Government
Orders
pertaining to pension/family pension
applicable to Government Servants would
automatically apply to the members of the
Centralised Services of the Development
Authority
(ii)
whether
Development
Authority is required to take approval
from
the
State
Government
before
implementing the Government Orders
revising
the
pension/family
pension
pursuant to the recommendations of the
Pay Commission accepted by the State
Government.

17. Before proceeding to consider
the rival contentions and submissions, it
would be apposite to examine the Act,
Rules and Government Orders governing
the employees of the Development
Authorities, in particular, members of the
Centralized Services with regard to
salary, pension and family pension.

18. State Legislature promulgated
the Development Act, 1973 (U.P. Act 30
of 1974). The Act was enacted for the
development of certain areas of Uttar
Pradesh according to plan and for matters
ancillary thereto. The State Government
constituted Development Authorities in
the State in relation to Development Area,
constituted as per the provisions of
Section 4, upon notification in the
Gazette.

19. Section 5 of Development Act,
1973,
provides
for
staff
of
the
Development Authority. Section 5 reads
thus:

"5. Staff of the Authority:

(1) The State Government may
appoint two suitable persons respectively
as the Secretary and the Chief Accounts
Officer of the Authority who shall
exercise such powers and perform such
duties
as
may
be
prescribed
by
regulations or delegated to them by the
Authority or its Vice-Chairman.

(2) Subject to such control and
restrictions as may be determined by
general or special order of the State
Government, the Authority may appoint
such number of other officer and
employees as may be necessary for the
efficient performance of its functions and
may determine their designations and
grades.

(3) The Secretary, the Chief
Accounts Officer and other Officers and
employees of the Authority shall be
entitled to receive from the funds of the
3 All. Shakuntala Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255
Authority such salaries and allowances
and shall be governed by such salaries
and allowances and shall be governed by
other conditions of service as may be
determined by regulations made in that
behalf."

20. On bare reading, Section 5
empowers the State Government to
appoint Secretary and Chief Accounts
Officer of Development Authority, who
shall exercise such powers and duties as
may be prescribed by the regulations or
delegated to them by the Development
Authority subject to such control and
restrictions as may be determined by the
general or special order of the State
Government. The Development Authority
has been conferred power to make
appointment of officers and employees as
may be necessary for the efficient
performance
of
its
functions
and
determine their designations and grades.
The Secretary, Chief Accounts Officer
and other officials and employees of the
Development Authority shall be entitled
to receive salaries and allowances from
the funds of the Development Authority
and shall be governed by such other
conditions
of
service
as
may
be
determined by the regulations made in
that behalf.

21. Section 5-A confers power upon
the State Government by notification to
create one or more Centralized Services
for such posts, other than the post
mentioned in Sub-section (4) of Section
59, common to all the Development
Authorities. The post as per Sub-section
(6) is transferable from one Development
Authority
to
another
Development
Authority. Relevant portion of Section 5A for the purposes of instant case is being
extracted:

"5-A. Creation of Centralised
Services:

(1) Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in Section 5 or in
any other law for the time being in force,
the State Government may at any time,
by notification create one or more
'Development Authorities Centralised
Services for such posts, other than the
posts mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of
Section 59, as the State Government may
deem fit, common to all the Development
Authorities, and may prescribe the
manner and conditions of recruitment to
and the terms and conditions of service
of person appointed to such service.

(2)
Upon
creation
of
a
Development
Authorities
Centralised
Service, a person serving on the posts
included in such service immediately
before such creation, not being a person
governed
by
the
U.P.
Palika
(Centralized) Services Rules, 1966. or
serving on deputation, shall, unless he
opts otherwise, be absorbed in such
service.-

(a) .........

(b) .........

(3) xxxxx

(4) xxxxx

(5) xxxxx

(a) .........

(b) .........

(6) It shall be lawful for the
State
Government
or
any
officer
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorised by it in this behalf, to transfer
any
person
holding
any
post
a
Development
Authorities
Centralised
Service from one Development Authority
to another."

22. On specific query, the learned
counsel for the State-respondents informs
that there are twenty four Development
Authorities in the State having single
Centralized Services common to all
Development Authorities governed by the
same conditions of service.

23. Chapter VII of Development
Act,
1973,
provides
for
Finance,
Accounts
and
Audit.
Section
24,
thereunder, provides for pension and
provident fund. Section 24 reads thus:

"24. Pension and Provident
Funds: -

(1)
The
Authority
may
constitute for the benefit of its whole
time paid members and of its officers
and other employees in such manner
and subject to such conditions, as the
State Government may specify, such
pension or Provident funds as it may
deem.

(2) Where any such person, or
provident fund has been constituted, the
State Government may declare that the
provisions of the Provident Funds Act,
1925, shall apply to such fund as if it
were Government Provident Fund."

24. Section 56 confers power upon
the Development Authority to make
regulations with the previous approval of
the State Government for administration
of the affairs of the Development
Authority including salaries, allowances
and
conditions
of
service
of
its
employees. Relevant portion of Section
56 is extracted:

"56.Power
to
make
regulations.-

(1) An Authority may,with the
previous
approval
of
the
State
Government,
make
regulations
not
inconsistent with this Act and the rule
made thereunder for the administration of
the affairs of the Authority.

(2) In particular, and without
prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such regulations may
provide for all or any of the following
matters, namely-

(a) ..........

(b) ..........

(c) the salaries, allowance and
conditions of service of the Secretary,
Chief
Accounts
Officer
and
other
officers and employees:

(d) ..........

(e) ..........

(f) ..........

(g) .........

(h) ..........

(i) ..........

(3) xxxxxx"

25. The State Government in
exercise
of
power
conferred
under
3 All. Shakuntala Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
Section 5A of Development Act, 1973,
notified
the
U.P.
Development
Authorities Centralized Services Rules,
19856, on 25 June 1985, applicable to all
the Development Authorities [Sub Rule
(2) of Rule 1]. The cadre and strength of
service has been provided under Rule 3.
The age of superannuation and retiring
pension is provided under Rule 34. Rule
37 mandates that any matter not covered
by these Rules or by special orders, the
members of service shall be governed by
the
rules,
regulations
and
orders
applicable generally to the Government
Servants of Uttar Pradesh. Rule 34 & 37
of the Centralised Services Rules, 1985, is
extracted:

"34. Age of retirement.- (1)
Subject to the provisions of Sub-rules (2)
and (3), the age of retirement from
service of all officers and other employees
of the service shall be sixty years beyond
which no one shall ordinarily be retained
in the service.

(2) xxxxxx

(3) xxxxxx

(4) A retiring pension and/or
other retirement benefits, if any, shall be
available in accordance with and subject
to the provisions of the relevant rules
applicable to every officer or other
employees who retires or is required or
allowed to retire under this rule.

Explanation--(1) xxxxxx

(2) xxxxxx

37.

Regulation
of
other
matters.- (1) If any dispute of difficulty
arises regarding interpretation of any of
the provisions of these rules, the same
shall be referred to the Government
whose decision shall be final.

(2) In regard to the matters not
covered by these rules or by special
orders, the members of service shall be
governed by the rules, regulations and
orders applicable generally to U.P.
Government
servants
serving
in
connection with the affairs of the State.

(3) Matters not covered by subrules (1) and (2) above shall be governed,
by such orders as the Government may
deem proper to issue."

26. Rule 31 provides for leave, leave
allowances, officiating pay, fee and
honorarium as is admissible to the
Government Servants of like status under
the U.P. Financial Hand Book, Volume II,
Parts II and IV.

27. Admittedly, all the employees
working earlier in Nagar Palika, Nagar
Nigam and later on, whose services were
merged/absorbed with the Centralised
Services, were being paid regular pension
in view of the provisions of Section 59 of
Development Act, 1973, and pursuant to
Government Orders dated 17 March 1983
and 29 September 1983, until April 1999.
Thereafter, pension was stopped and was
not being paid to the employees of the
Development Authority.

28. Prior to April 1999, until
framing of the Retirement Benefit Rules
2011, under the Development Act, 1973,
the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Palika
(Centralized) Services Retirement Benefit
Rules, 19817, was applicable to the
employees
of
the
Development
Authorities. Family pension is provided
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Rule 7 of Chapter III which reads
thus:
**Hkkx&rhu
ikfjokfjd isa'ku

7- ikfjokfjd isa'ku&

fdlh dsUnzhf;r lsok esa fu;qDr fdlh
O;fDr ds ifjokfjd isa'ku mRrj izns'k ds
dk;Zdykiksa ds lEcU/k esa lsokjr ljdkjh lsodksa
ij ykxw la;qDr fu;eksa }kjk fofu;fer gksxhA**

"Part - 3

Family pension

7. Family pension-

The family pension of any
person appointed in any Centralized
Service shall be regulated in terms of
common rules applicable to serving Uttar
Pradesh government servants attending to
its affairs."

(Translation by the Court)

29. The Government order dated 4
April 1999, stopping the pension was set
aside in Praveen Kumar Agrawal2,
State Government, thereafter, framed the
Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011, which
governs the payment of pension/family
pension
of
the
employees
of
the
Development Authorities. Part‒I deals
with ''Pension and Gratuity'. Rule 4
provides calculation of pension and
gratuity according to the procedure and
formula applicable to employees of the
State Government. Relevant portion of
Rule 4 is extracted:

"4. Calculation of Pension and
Gratuity-

(1)
The
amount
of
superannuation, retirement, invalid and
compensation pension and gratuity shall
be
appropriate
amount
calculated
according to the procedure and formula
applicable to the employees of the Uttar
Pradesh Government.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx xxx xxx

(3) The expression "invalid and
compensation pension" will have the
same meaning as is assigned to it in
respect of the employees of the State
Government."

30. Part-III of the Retirement
Benefit Rules, 2011, provides for family
pension, regulated by the relevant rules
applicable to Government Servants of the
State of Uttar Pradesh. Rule 7 is
extracted:

"7. The Family Pension to the
family of a member of the service shall
be regulated by the relevant rules
applicable
to
Government
Servants
services in connection with the affairs of
the State of Uttar Pradesh."

31. The Government in exercise of
power conferred under proviso to Subclause (3) of Rule 1 of Retirement Benefit
Rules, 2011, and in compliance of the
decision rendered in Praveen Kumar
Agrawal2, issued Government Order
conferring the benefit of pension/family
pension
to
all
the
employees
of
Development Authority, who retired prior
to 11 November 2011. In other words, the
Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, covered
all the employees and members of the
Centralized Services retiring prior to 2011
3 All. Shakuntala Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
and thereafter. Husband of the petitioner
pursuant thereunder applied for pension,
however,
died
on
29
July
2012.
Petitioner, thereafter, pursued the matter
with
the
respondent-authorities
for
arrears, pension and family pension,
revised from time to time, with effect
from the date of retirement of the husband
of the petitioner i.e. 30 September 2001.

32. The State Government vide
Government Order dated 8 December
2008, accepted the recommendation of
the Sixth Central Pay Commission
proposed by the Uttar Pradesh Pay
Committee. The Government Order was
made applicable to all the employees of
the State Government retired prior to 1
January 2006. Along with Government
Order, a tabular chart showing existing
Basic Pension/Family Pension without
dearness
allowance,
Basic
Pension/Family Pension with dearness
allowance
and
the
consolidated
Pension/Family Pension was appended
for
computation
of
pension/revised
pension. The Government Order further
provided that the amount of family
pension shall not be lower than 30% of
the sum minimum of the pay in the payband and grade pay corresponding to the
pay scale in which the government
servant retired prior to 1 January 2006.
Clause 4(1) of the Government Order,
however, provides a rider that pension
will be reduced pro rata where the
pensioner had less than 33 years of
service. According to the petitioner,
minimum basic pension of the deceasedemployee would be computed as under:

Pensi
on
vide
5th
As
per
form
ula in
As
per
proviso of
Para4-(1)
(after proAs per Proviso of
Clause
4-(1).
(without
applying
rider of 33 years
Pay
Com
missi
on
i.e.
Prior
to
01.01
.2006

Claus
e
4(1)
w.e.f.
01.01
.2006
(as
per
Pensi
on
Table
)
rata
reduction
as
per
rider of 33
years
of
service)
service)

Rs.6,
051/-

Rs.1
3,677
/-
Rs.17,113/
-
Rs.23,050/-

33. Similarly, the minimum basic
family pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 1
January 2006 works out to be:

As per formula in
Clause 4(1)
As per Proviso of
Clause 4(1)
Rs.11,052/-
Rs.13,830/-

34. Relevant portion of Government
Order dated 8 December 2008 is
extracted:

mRrj izns'k 'kklu
foRr 1⁄4lkekU;1⁄2 vuqHkkx&3
y[kuÅ% fnukad % 8 fnlEcj 2008
dk;kZy;&Kki

fo"k; % osru lfefr mRrj izns'k]
2008 dh laLrqfr;ksa dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus ds
QyLo:i fnukad 01-01-2006 ds iwoZ lsokfuo`Rr
jkT; ljdkj ds flfoy isa'kujksa@ikfjokfjd
isa'kujksa
dh
isa'ku@ikfjokfjd
isa'ku
dk
vfHkuohdj.k@ iqujh{k.kA

1& mijksaDr fo"k; ij v/kksgLrk{kjh
dks ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd jkT;iky
egksn; us osru lfefr mRrj izns'k 2008 dh
laLrqfr;ksa dks Lohdkj djrs gq, fnukad 01-012006 ds iwoZ lsokfuo`Rr @ e`r lHkh flfoy
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
isa'kujksa @ ikfjokfjd isa'kujksa dh isa'kuksa ds
vfHkuohdj.k @ iqujh{k.k ds laca/k esa fuEu
vkns'k iznku fd, gSaA

2& xxx xxx xxx

3& xxx xxx xxx

4&1⁄411⁄2 ,sls isa'kujksa @ ikfjokfjd
isa'kujksa dh isa'ku @ ikfjokfjd isa'ku tks fnukad
01-10-2006 ds iwoZ ls isa'ku @ ikfjokfjd isa'ku
izkIr dj jgs gSa] dk lesdu fnukad 01-01-2006
ls fuEufyf[kr /kujkf'k;ksa dks lfEefyr djds
fd;k tk;sxk %&

1⁄4i1⁄2 orZeku isa'ku @ ikfjokfjd
isa'ku]

1⁄4ii1⁄2 egWxkbZ isa'ku tgkW vuqeU; gks]

1⁄4iii1⁄2 orZeku egWxkbZ jkgr tSlk fd
vkSlr AICPI536 1⁄4o"kZ 1982&100 ds vk/kkj ij1⁄2
ewy isa'ku @ewy ikfjokfjd isa'ku rFkk egWxkbZ
isa'ku ds 24 izfr'kr ds cjkcj vuqeU; gS
'kklukns'k
la[;k&
lk&3&1746@nl&2005&308@2004]
fnukad
02 fnlEcj 2005 ds vuqlkj egWxkbZ jkgr ds
50 izfr'kr ds cjkcj /kujkf'k dks egWaxkbZ isa'ku
esa ifjofrZr djrs gq,]

1⁄4iv1⁄2 isa'ku @ ikfjokfjd isa'ku] ds
40 izfr'kr ds fQVesUV osVst dh /kujkf'k Hkh
lfEefyr gksxhA

ftu izdj.kksa esa orZeku isa'ku dh
/kujkf'k esa 50 izfr'kr dh egWaxkbZ jkgr dh
/kujkf'k lfEefyr gS mu izdj.kksa esa fQVesUV
osVst dh /kujkf'k dh x.kuk ewy isa'ku ij
vFkkZr egWaxkbZ isa'ku dh /kujkf'k ?kVkdj dh
tk,xhA

bl izdkj vxf.kr isa'ku @
ikfjokfjd isa'ku] dks fnukad 01-01-2006 ls ewy
isa'ku ekuk tk,xkA

fdUrq izfrcU/k ;g gksxk fd isa'kuj
dh isa'ku dh /kujkf'k lsokfuo`fRr ds le;
mlds iqjkus osrueku ds izfrLFkkfir is cS.M ds
U;wure rFkk lacaf/kr xzsM is d ;ksx ds 50
izfr'kr dh /kujkf'k ls de ugha gksxhA tgkW
vgZdkjh lsok 33 o"kZ ls de gS ogkW ;g /kujkf'k
vuqikfjr :i ls de dj nh tk,xh fdUrq
fdlh Hkh n'kk esa ;g :03500@& izfrekg ls
de ugha gksxhA

blh izdkj ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh
/kujkf'k lacaf/kr ljdkjh lsod ds fnukad 01-012006 ls iqjkus osrueku ds izfrLFkkfir is cS.M
ds U;wure rFkk lacaf/kr xzsM is ds ;ksx ds 30
izfr'kr fdUrq fdlh Hkh n'kk esa ;g :0
3500@& izfrekg ls de ugha gksxhA**

Government of Uttar Pradesh

Vitta (Samanya) Anubhag - 3

Lucknow: Dated: 8th December
2008

Office Memo

Subject: Up-gradation/revision
of pension/family pension of the civil
pensioners/family pensioners of the state
government retired prior to 01.01.2006,
consequent to the approval of the
recommendations made by the Pay
Committee, Uttar Pradesh, 2008.

1- On the above-mentioned
subject, the undersigned is directed to say
that Hon'ble Governor while accepting
the
recommendations
of
the
Pay
Committee, Uttar Pradesh, 2008 for upgradation/revision
of
all
the
civil
pensioners/family
pensioners
retired/deceased before 01.01.2006, has
given the following orders:

2- xxxxxx

3- xxxxxx

4-(1)
The
pension/family
pension
of
those
pensioners/family
pensioners who have been obtaining
pension/family pension since prior to
01.10.2006, shall be consolidated by
aggregating the following amounts: -

(i)-
Current
pension/family
pension,
3 All. Shakuntala Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261

(ii)-
Dearness
pension,
wherever admissible,

(iii)-
The
dearness
relief,
currently admissible, is equal to 24
percent
of
original
pension/original
family pension and dearness pension on
the basis of AICPI536 (on the basis of
100 in 1982); and by converting the
amount equal to 50 percent of the
dearness relief into dearness pension in
terms of the Government Order No. Sa-21746/X-2005-308/2004,
dated
02nd
December, 2005,

(iv)- The amount of fitment
weightage being 40 percent of the
pension/ family pension shall also be
included in the said pension/ family
pension.

In the cases wherein dearness
relief @ 50 percent is included in the
present pension amount, the amount of
fitment weightage shall be calculated on
basic pension i.e. after deducting the
amount of dearness relief from pension.

The pension/ family pension
thus calculated shall be taken to be the
basic pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

Provided that the pension of the
pensioner shall be not less than 50
percent of the total of minimum of payband corresponding to his old pay-scale
and corresponding grade pay at the time
of his superannuation. Where his service
is less than 33-year qualifying service,
this amount shall be reduced in the same
ratio but in any circumstance it shall not
be less than Rs 3500/-.

Similarly, the amount of the
family pension shall in any condition be
not less than 30 percent of the total of
minimum of pay band replacing the old
pay scale of the government servant as on
01.01.2006 and corresponding grade-pay,
subject to minimum of Rs 3500/- per
month."

[Translation by the Court]

35. Table, part of the Government
Order, computes the existing Basic
Pension/Family Pension without Dearness
Pension/Family Dearness (Column-1),
Basic Pension/Family Pension without
Dearness
Pension/Family
Dearness
Pension
(Column-2),
and
Revised
Consolidated
Pension/Family
Pension
(Column-3) in so far it relates to the exemployee and the petitioner is extracted:

BP

(pre
200
6)
wit
hou
t
DP
B
P

(p
re
2
0
0
6)
w
it
h
D
P

Rev
ised
Con
soli
date
d
Pen
sion

B
P
(p
re
2
0
0
6)
w
it
h
o
ut
D
P
B
P
(p
re
2
0
0
6)
w
it
h

D
P
R
ev
is
ed
C
o
ns
ol
id
at
ed
P
en
si
o
n
B
P

(
p
r
e

2
0
0
6
)

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

D
P

B
P

(p
re
2
0
0
6)
w
it
h

D
P

R
ev
is
ed
C
o
ns
ol
id
at
ed
P
en
si
o
n

B
P

(p
re
2
0
0
6)
w
it
h
o
ut
D
P

B
P

(p
re
2
0
0
6)
w
it
h
D
P

Rev
ised
Con
soli
date
d
Pen
sion

(1)
(2
)
(3)
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(
1
)
(2
)

(1
)
(2
)
(3)
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
489
0
7
3
3
5
110
52

BP

(
pre
2006)
withou
t
DP
BP

(
pre
2006)
with
DP

Revise
d
Consol
idated
Pensio
n

BP
(pre
2006)
withou
t
DP
BP
(pre
2006)
with

DP
Revise
d
Consol
idated
Pensio
n
BP
(pre
2006)
withou
t DP

 BP

(
pre
2006)
with

DP

Revise
d
Consol
idated
Pensio
n

BP

(
pre
2006)
withou
t
DP

BP

(
pre
2006)
with
DP

Revise
d
Consoli
dated
Pensio
n

(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)

(1)
(2)
(3)
6051
9077
13677

36. The Finance Department of the
State Government vide resolve dated 7
February
2009,
has
accepted
the
recommendations
of
the
6th
Pay
Commission and is applicable on all
Local Bodies, including, the Development
Authorities. It further clarifies that the
State Government shall not be responsible
to provide funds to meet the expenses
which has to be borne by the respective
Local Bodies/Development Authorities.
Relevant portion of the resolve dated 7
February 2009 is extracted:

i<+k x;k % osru lfefr 1⁄420081⁄2 ds
f}rh; izfrosnu Hkkx&1 esa dh xbZ laLrqfr;kWaA

i;kZykspkukFkZ& 'kklu }kjk osru
lfefr ds f}rh; izfrosnu Hkkx&1 esa uxjh;
LFkkuh; fudk;] ftyk iapk;r] ty laLFkku
rFkk fodkl izkf/kdj.kksa ds fofHkUu Js.kh ds
deZpkfj;ksa@ vf/kdkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa dh x;h
laLrqfr;ksa ij fopkj fd;k x;kA 'kklu us osru
lfefr ds f}rh; izfrosnu Hkkx&1 esa dh x;h
laLrqfr;ksa dks fuEukuqlkj Lohdkj dj fy;k
gS%&&

1⁄411⁄2 iqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa osru
cS.M rFkk xzsM osru esa fuf/kZfjr osru fnukad
01&1&2006 vFkok fn;s x;s fodYi dh frfFk
ls ns; gksxk ,oa egaxkbZ HkRrs dh la'kksf/kr njsa
osru lfefr dh laLrqfr ds vuqlkj jkT;
deZpkfj;ksa ds leku ns; gksaxhA

1⁄421⁄2-----------------------------------

1⁄431⁄2 iqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa osru
fu/kkZj.k jktdh; deZpkfj;ksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa ds
laca/k esa osru lfefr ds izFke izfrosnu ds
ek/;e ls dh x;h laLrqfr;ksa ij 'kklu }kjk
fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds avuqlkj fd;k tk,xkA

1⁄441⁄2---------------------------------