# Smt. Suman Singh v. Chairman, Ram Manohar Lohia Inst. Of Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1562
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-24
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 139 of 2022
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-suman-singh-v-chairman-ram-manohar-lohia-inst-of-medical-sciences-lko-ors-50140
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Sri Anupras Singh, C.S.C., Sri Vinayak
Saxena
5 All. Smt. Suman Singh Vs. Chairman, Ram Manohar Lohia Inst. Of Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors.
1563
A. Interpretation - Liberal interpretation:
Any beneficial provision must be given a
liberal interpretation in a manner that
extends
and
advances
the
benefits
intended for the beneficiary, and not
otherwise.
In
cases
where
two
interpretations are possible for such a
provision, the interpretation that furthers
the benefit to the beneficiary must be
preferred.

B. Civil Law - Service Matter - Pension -
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of
Medical Sciences Act, 2015 - Old Pension
Scheme - New Pension Scheme - G.O.
dated 16.09.2010 - Government Order
dated 16.09.2010 issued by the State
Government in the Department of Finance
- Clause 3 of the Government Order
provides that those employees who were
appointed
in
a
State
Government
Service/Post that was pensionable prior to
01.04.2005, and are again appointed to
any other post, cadre, or service of the
State Government or under autonomous
institutions, having been relieved from
their earlier posting or having resigned
from the earlier post in some pensionable
service after 01.04.2005, shall also be
governed by the Old Pension Scheme. In
Clauses 2 and 3 of the said Government
Order dated 16.09.2010, the words पेंशियुक्त
पद
/
पेंशियुक्त
सेवा

(Pensionable
Post/Pensionable
Service)
occur.
One
possible interpretation of Clauses 2 and 3
of
the
Government
Order
dated
16.09.2010 is that the word 'Pensionable'
qualifying the words 'Post' and 'Service' in
both Clauses should not be confined to the
Old Pension Scheme alone. It can be
interpreted
to
include
both
Pension
Schemes,
namely,
the
Old
Pension
Scheme, which was available prior to
01.04.2005, and the New Pension Scheme,
which has been in effect since 01.04.2005.
Restricting the construction of the words
'Pensionable Service' or 'Pensionable Post'
to mean only those posts and services
covered by the Old Pension Scheme would
curtail the pension benefits for retired
employees or those employees who are to
retire
in
the
future.
The
words
'Pensionable Service' and 'Pensionable
Post' in the Government Order dated
16.09.2010 should thus be interpreted to
mean Post or Service covered either by
the Old Pension Scheme or even by the
New Pension Scheme. It is not in dispute
that the posts and services at the RML
Institute are covered by the New Pension
Scheme. Therefore, giving a restricted
meaning
to
the
word
'Pensionable
Post/Pensionable Service' as it occurs in
the Government Order dated 16.09.2010
cannot be accepted. The Court directed
that the appellant-petitioner shall be
entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension
Scheme while serving at the RML Institute
as well (Para 21, 22, 29, 34).

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permanent, has to be read down as
'services
rendered
by
a
government
employee, be it of temporary or permanent
nature'."

8. The pension rules adopted by the
respondent Jal Sansthan (Rural) have
already been read down by this Court in the
case of Jai Prakash (Supra), being held in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, as they create an artificial
categorization
of
similarly
situated
employees. Relevant portion the said
judgment reads:

"The present Rules of 1984 are
parallel to the Rules of State Government
which have been read down by the Supreme
Court, being held in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, as they
create an artificial categorization of
similarly situated employees. In the
present
case
also
an
artificial
classification is created as admittedly, as
the daily wage employees perform the
same duties as the regular employees
and are throughout treated as the
regular
employee.
They
were
also
regularized in continuation of their
services. Thus, the matter is squarely
covered by the law settled in case of
Prem Singh (Supra)."

9. In the present case also an artificial
classification is created as admittedly, as
the daily rated employees perform the same
duties as the regular employees and are
throughout treated as the regular employee.
They were also regularized in continuation
of their work charge services. Thus, the
matter is squarely covered by the law
settled in case of Prem Singh (Supra) and
Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra) and Jai Praksh
(supra).

10. Thus, the writ petition is allowed
and impugned order dated 20.02.2020 is set
aside.

11. Respondents are directed to
ensure regular payment of pensionary and
other retirement benefits to the petitioners
who have already retired, under the Pension
Rules,
treating
their
entire
service,
including services rendered by them as
daily rated employees prior to their
regularization as qualifying services for
pensionary benefits within a period of three
months.

12. Respondents are further directed
to enroll petitioners who have not yet
retired under the Old Pension Scheme by
adding the services of petitioners rendered
by them as daily rated employees.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1562
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 139 of 2022

Smt. Suman Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Ram Manohar Lohia Inst. Of
Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rani Singh, Sri Abhineet Jaiswal, Sri
Chinmay Mishra, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anupras Singh, C.S.C., Sri Vinayak
Saxena
5 All. Smt. Suman Singh Vs. Chairman, Ram Manohar Lohia Inst. Of Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors.
1563
A. Interpretation - Liberal interpretation:
Any beneficial provision must be given a
liberal interpretation in a manner that
extends
and
advances
the
benefits
intended for the beneficiary, and not
otherwise.
In
cases
where
two
interpretations are possible for such a
provision, the interpretation that furthers
the benefit to the beneficiary must be
preferred.

B. Civil Law - Service Matter - Pension -
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of
Medical Sciences Act, 2015 - Old Pension
Scheme - New Pension Scheme - G.O.
dated 16.09.2010 - Government Order
dated 16.09.2010 issued by the State
Government in the Department of Finance
- Clause 3 of the Government Order
provides that those employees who were
appointed
in
a
State
Government
Service/Post that was pensionable prior to
01.04.2005, and are again appointed to
any other post, cadre, or service of the
State Government or under autonomous
institutions, having been relieved from
their earlier posting or having resigned
from the earlier post in some pensionable
service after 01.04.2005, shall also be
governed by the Old Pension Scheme. In
Clauses 2 and 3 of the said Government
Order dated 16.09.2010, the words पेंशियुक्त
पद
/
पेंशियुक्त
सेवा

(Pensionable
Post/Pensionable
Service)
occur.
One
possible interpretation of Clauses 2 and 3
of
the
Government
Order
dated
16.09.2010 is that the word 'Pensionable'
qualifying the words 'Post' and 'Service' in
both Clauses should not be confined to the
Old Pension Scheme alone. It can be
interpreted
to
include
both
Pension
Schemes,
namely,
the
Old
Pension
Scheme, which was available prior to
01.04.2005, and the New Pension Scheme,
which has been in effect since 01.04.2005.
Restricting the construction of the words
'Pensionable Service' or 'Pensionable Post'
to mean only those posts and services
covered by the Old Pension Scheme would
curtail the pension benefits for retired
employees or those employees who are to
retire
in
the
future.
The
words
'Pensionable Service' and 'Pensionable
Post' in the Government Order dated
16.09.2010 should thus be interpreted to
mean Post or Service covered either by
the Old Pension Scheme or even by the
New Pension Scheme. It is not in dispute
that the posts and services at the RML
Institute are covered by the New Pension
Scheme. Therefore, giving a restricted
meaning
to
the
word
'Pensionable
Post/Pensionable Service' as it occurs in
the Government Order dated 16.09.2010
cannot be accepted. The Court directed
that the appellant-petitioner shall be
entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension
Scheme while serving at the RML Institute
as well (Para 21, 22, 29, 34).

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. & anr.versus Pradeep Kumari & ors..,
(1995) 2 SCC 736

2. Bangalore Turf Club Limited versus Regional
Director, Employees State Insurance
Corporation, (2014) 9 SCC 657

3. Allahabad Bank & anr. Vs All India Allahabad
Bank Retired Employees Association, (2010) 2
SCC 44

4. Som Prakash Rekhi Vs U.O.i., (1981) 1 SCC 449

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J.
&
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J. )

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
appellant-petitioner, Shri Anupras Singh,
learned Counsel representing Dr. Ram
Manohar
Lohia
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences, Shri Vinayak Saxena, learned
Counsel representing Sanjay Gandhi Post
Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences
(hereinafter referred to as ''SGPGIMS') and
learned State Counsel appearing for the
State of U.P.
1564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. By instituting the proceedings of
this Special Appeal, the appellant-petitioner
questions the order dated 17.02.2022
passed by learned Single Judge whereby
Writ-A No. 2001877 of 2015 has been
dismissed and her claim for grant of the
benefit of the Old Pension Scheme after
being appointed in the Ram Manohar Lohia
Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter
referred to as 'RML') has not been acceded
to.

3. Impeaching the order passed by
learned Single Judge, it has been argued on
behalf of the appellant-petitioner that the
construction/interpretation sought to be given
by learned Single Judge to the Government
Order dated 16.09.2010 is not tenable for the
reason that the said Government Order has
been issued for conferring certain benefits to
the retired employees and accordingly, it has
to be read and construed in a manner which
farthers the benefit flowing from it rather than
curtailing the same. Further submission made
on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that
it
is
the
Government
Order
dated
16.09.2010
issued
by
the
State
Government in the Finance Department
which holds the field for the reason that it
embodies and expresses the general policy
decision
of
the
State
Government
applicable
to
all
rather
than
the
Government Order dated 29.08.2014,
which has been issued by the Medical
Education Department, that too without
consultation with the Finance Department.
It has also been urged by the learned
Counsel
representing
the
appellantpetitioner that in case of beneficial
legislation which will include beneficial
subordinate
legislation,
if
two
interpretations/constructions are possible,
the interpretation which is in favour of the
beneficiary, is to be adopted and not the
other one.

4. Submission, thus, is that if the
Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is
interpreted in view of the aforesaid legal
propositions, the only feasible conclusion
which may be drawn is that the appellantpetitioner will be entitled to be given the
benefit of Old Pension Scheme after her
appointment in the RML Institute.

5. Opposing the prayers made in this
Special
Appeal,
learned
Counsel
representing the RML Institute as also the
learned State Counsel have, in one voice,
submitted that the Government Order dated
16.09.2010 is clear which does not require
any interpretation in a manner other than
which is apparent from a plain reading of
the contents thereof. It has been argued on
their behalf that admittedly the posts in
RML Institute are non-pensionable neither
the
services
in
RML
Institute
are
pensionable, hence, the Government Order
dated 16.09.2010 does not confer any right
upon the appellant-petitioner to claim the
benefit of Old Pension Scheme.

6. Further Submission is that the
benefit of Old Pension Scheme will be available
only to an employee, who on his new
appointment after the New Pension Scheme
was promulgated, is working against a
pensionable post or in a pensionable service and
such
an
employee
is
appointed,
after
promulgation of the New Pension Scheme,
against a pensionable post or in a pensionable
service. Drawing attention of the Court to the
date on which the RML Institute came into
existence i.e., in June, 2005, it has been argued
that no service or post in RML Institute is
pensionable, accordingly, the services rendered
by the appellant-petitioner on her appointment
in RML Institute after having resigned from
service at SGPGIMS being non-pensionable,
she shall not be entitled to the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme.
5 All. Smt. Suman Singh Vs. Chairman, Ram Manohar Lohia Inst. Of Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors.
1565

7. It has, thus, been urged by the
learned Counsel for the State as also the
learned
Counsel
representing
RML
Institute that the Special Appeal is liable to
be dismissed.

8. We have considered the rival
submissions made by learned Counsels in
the respective parties and have also perused
the records available before us on this
Special Appeal.

9. Before we advert to the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel for the parties, we may note
certain facts which are essential for
appropriate
resolution
of
the
issues
involved in this case.

10. The appellant-petitioner was
appointed on the Post of Sister Grade-II in
the year 1996 at SGPGIMS. She continued
to work on the said post which is,
admittedly, pensionable. In the meantime,
an
advertisement
was
issued
for
appointment to the post of Chief Nursing
Officer, pursuant to which the appellantpetitioner made her application and on
selection, she was appointed by means of
an order dated 08.12.2010 on the post of
Chief Nursing Officer at RML Institute. In
pursuance of the appointment order dated
08.12.2010, she submitted her joining on
11.01.2011 on probation for a period of one
year. After completion of her probation on
the post of Chief Nursing Officer at RML
Institute, she was confirmed on the said
post by means of an order dated 31.05.2012
with effect from 11.01.2012. She is, thus,
working at present on the post of Chief
Nursing Officer as a confirmed employee
at RML Institute.

11. It appears that the appellant filed a
Writ Petition bearing no. 897 of 2015
before this Court with the prayer inter alia
to issue directions to the authorities of
RML Institute for giving her the benefit of
Old Pension Scheme. The said writ petition
was finally disposed of by this Court by
means of an order dated 22.06.2015
whereby a direction was given to the
Director of Institute to consider and decide
the
representation
of
the
appellantpetitioner.

12. In compliance of the said order
dated 22.06.2015 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 897 of 2015, the Director
considered the representation made by the
appellant-petitioner, however, the said
representation did not find favour with the
Director which was rejected by means of an
order dated 17.08.2015. We may note at
this juncture itself that the Director while
passing the order dated 17.08.2015 recites
that the matter relating to grant of benefit
of Old Pension Scheme to the appellantpetitioner was referred to the State
Government, which apprised the RML
Institute by means of the Government
Order/Letter dated 29.08.2014 that since
the
Institute
was
established
after
01.04.2005, hence, no post available or
created in the Institute is covered by the
Old Pension Scheme and accordingly, in
terms of the Government Order dated
16.09.2010 the appellant-petitioner shall
not be entitled to be given the benefit of
Old Pension Scheme. Challenging the said
order dated 17.08.2015, the appellantpetitioner instituted the proceedings of
Writ-A No. 2001877 of 2015 which has
been dismissed by learned Single Judge by
means of the order dated 17.02.2022 which
has been assailed before us in this Special
Appeal.

13. The sole question which falls for
our consideration, in this case is as to in
1566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
what manner the Government Order dated
16.09.2010 issued by the State Government
in the Department of Finance is to be
construed and interpreted and depending on
the construction of the said Government
Order as to whether the appellant-petitioner
will be entitled to be given the benefit of
Old Pension Scheme which was prevalent
to the State Government employees as also
the employees of various autonomous
institutions/bodies functioning under the
State Government prior to 01.04.2005.

14. The New Pension Scheme, was
promulgated by the State Government by
means of a notification dated 28.03.2005,
according to which, the State Government
had taken a decision to introduce New
Pension Scheme which is based on the
employee's contribution. The said Pension
Scheme in terms of the notification dated
28.03.2005 has been made applicable with
effect from 01.04.2005; meaning thereby
that the State Government employees or the
employees
appointed
in
autonomous
institutions of the State Government on or
after 01.04.2005 shall be governed by the
Pension Scheme which is contributory in
nature and such employees shall not be
governed by the Old Pension Scheme
which
was
majorly
based
on
the
contribution made by the State alone.

15. It is not in dispute that the State
Government took a decision to establish
Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical
Sciences in June, 2005. Earlier, it was run
and managed by a State owned society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act. However, in the year 2015 by means
of enacting Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 2015, the
Institute functions under the prescriptions
available in the said enactment passed by
the State Legislature. However, as observed
above, it is not in dispute that RML
Institute was established after 01.04.2005,
the date with effect from which the New
Pension Scheme has been introduced.

16. To remove certain confusions the
State Government in the Department of
Finance issued a Government Order on
16.09.2010
which
formulates
the
conclusions on the queries which had
arisen on account of implementation of the
New
Pension
Scheme.
The
queries
formulated in the Government Order dated
16.09.2010 are embodied in clause 2 of the
said Government Order which is extracted
herein below:-

"2. बवि बवभ ग में इस बिांदु पर स्पष्टीकरण प्रद न
बकये ज ने सम्िांधी सांदभा प्र प्त होर्े रहे हैं बक ऐसे कमाच री जो र ज्य
सरक र की बकसी पेंशनयुक्त सेव में बदन ांक 01 अप्रैल, 2005 के
पूवा बनयुक्त हो चुके थे र्थ बदन ांक 01 अप्रैल, 2005 को अथव
उसके उपर न्र् र ज्य सरक र के अधीन बकसी अन्य सेव /सांवगा में
पेंशनयुक्त पद पर बनयुक्त होर्े हैं, र्ो उन्हें पुर नी पेंशन योजन , जो
बदन ांक 01 अप्रैल, 2005 के पूवा ल गू थी, से आच्ि बदर् म न
ज येग अथव नई पेंशन योजन से।"

17. The clarification to the said query
can be found in Clause 3 of the said
Government Order 16.09.2010 which is
also being extracted herein below for
reference:-

"3. इस सांिांध में मुझे यह कहने क बनदेश ह आ है
बक श सन द्व र सम्यक बवच रोपर न्र् यह बनणाय बलय गय है बक
ऐसे सभी कमाच री बजन्होंने र ज्य सरक र की अथव ऐसे समस्र्
श सन के बनयन्त्रणधीन स्व यिश सी सांस्थ ओां और श सन से
सह यर् प्र प्त बशक्षण सांस्थ ओां बजनमें र ज्य कमाच ररयों की पेंशन
योजन की भॉबर् पेंशन योजन ल गू थी और उनक बवि पोषण
र ज्य सरक र की समेबकर् बनबध से बकय ज र् है, की पेंशनयुक्त
सेव में बदन ांक 01 अप्रैल, 2005 के पूवा योगद न बकय थ र्थ
बदन ांक 01 अप्रैल, 2005 को अथव उसके पश्च र्् र ज्य सरक र
की अथव श सन की बनयन्त्रण धीन उक्त उबल्लबिर् स्व यिश सी
सांस्थ ओां और श सन से सह यर् प्र प्त बशक्षण सांस्थ ओांेां की,
5 All. Smt. Suman Singh Vs. Chairman, Ram Manohar Lohia Inst. Of Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors.
1567
पेंशनयुक्त सेव में अपनी पूवा सेव से क यामुक्त होकर अथव
र्कनीकी त्य ग-पत्र देकर बनयुक्त होर्े हैं, र्ो उसी पेंशन योजन से
आच्ि ांबदर् म ने ज येंगे बजसे पेंशन योजन से वे बदन ांक 01 अप्रैल,
2005 के पूवा आच्ि बदर् थे।"

18. What we can gather from Clause 2
of the Government Order dated 16.09.2010
is that the Government was clarifying as to
whether such employees who are appointed
in a pensionable service prior to 01.04.2005
and are thereafter again appointed after
01.04.2005 in any other service/cadre under
the State Government against pensionable
post, will they be entitled to be covered by
the Old Pension Scheme or they shall be
governed by the New Pension Scheme.
Clarifying the same, Clause 3 of the
Government Order clearly provides that
those employees, who were appointed in a
State Government Service/Post which was
pensionable prior to 01.04.2005 and are
again appointed against any other post or
cadre or service of the State Government or
under autonomous institutions, having been
relieved from their earlier posting or having
resigned from the earlier post in some
pensionable service after 01.04.2005, shall
also be governed by the Old Pension
Scheme.

19. The reason given by the Director
while rejecting the claim of the appellantpetitioner in the order dated 17.08.2015 is
based on a Government Order dated
29.08.2014, which we will now examine.
The Government Order dated 29.08.2014
has not been issued by the Finance
Department of the State Government;
neither does it anywhere mention that it
was issued with the concurrence of or in
consultation with the Finance Department.
It is rather a Government Order issued by
the Medical Education Department which
is the Administrative Department of the
RML Institute. The Medical Education
Department,
thus,
while
issuing
the
Government Order dated 29.08.2014 has
attempted to interpret the Government
Order issued by the Finance Department on
16.09.2010 and has concluded that since
the post sanctioned in RML Institute are
not pensionable as such any employee
appointed
in
RML
Institute
after
01.04.2005 having been relieved from his
earlier posting or having resigned from his
earlier posting where he was working even
against pensionable post, will not be
covered by New Pension Scheme.

20. In the context of the aforesaid
Government Order dated 29.08.2014 issued
by the Medical Education Department, we
may refer to the Government Order issued
by
the
Finance
Department,
dated
16.09.2010 again. In Clauses 2 and 3 of the
said Government Order dated 16.09.2010
the word पेंिनयुक्त पद/ पेंिनयुक्त सेवा (Pensionable
Post/Pensionable Service) occur. The said
provision contained in Clauses 2 and 3 of
the Government Order dated 16.09.2010
can be interpreted possibly in two ways.

21. The first interpretation which may
be given to the said phrase of the
Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is that
the
words
''Pensionable
Post'
and
''Pensionable Service' are to qualify the
service or post against which an employee
was working prior to 01.04.2005 and also
against a post or service where he/she is
appointed after 01.04.2005. There is no
ambiguity
in
such
an
interpretation,
however, if we read the said Government
Order further what we find is that the
words ''Pensionable Post' and ''Pensionable
Service' can be read to mean the
post/service covered only by the Old
Pension Scheme. Thus, as observed above,
it
may
be
one
of
the
possible
interpretations. However, the other possible
1568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interpretation of Clauses 2 and 3 of the
Government Order dated 16.09.2010 may
be that the word ''Pensionable' qualifying
the words ''Post' and ''Service' in both the
Clauses will not be confined to Old Pension
Scheme alone. It can be read to include
both the Pension Schemes, namely, the Old
Pension Scheme which was available prior
to 01.04.2005 and the New Pension
Scheme which is now available with effect
from 01.04.2005.

22. In our opinion, restricting the
construction of the words ''Pensionable
Service' or ''Pensionable Post' to mean only
those posts and services which are covered
by the Old Pension Scheme will have the
impact of curtailing the benefit of pension
to
the
retired
employees
or
those
employees who are to retire in future. It is
not that the services and posts created and
sanctioned in the RML Institute are not
pensionable. The post and services are
pensionable though are governed and
covered
by
New
Pension
Scheme
promulgated by means of the notification
dated 28.03.2005.

23. Pension to a retired employee, in a
sense, is, in fact, a beneficial provision which
is provided by the employers not only to
provide some financial support to the
employees after retirement in lieu of the
services which he renders in the best times of
his life to the employer but also to take care
of the needs of such employees in old age.
Accordingly, we find that the Government
Order dated 16.09.2010 is beneficial in nature
and hence, for construing and interpreting
such a Government Order we have to
consider
as
to
how
such
beneficial
Government Order is to be interpreted.

24. In this regard, we may have
reference to certain pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, first of which is,
Union of India and Another versus
Pradeep Kumari and Others, (1995) 2
SCC 736 wherein it has been observed that,
'In relation to beneficent legislation, the
law is well settled that while construing
the provisions of such a legislation the
Court should adopt a construction which
advances the policy of legislation to
extend
the
benefit
rather
than
a
construction which has the effect of
curtailing the benefits conferred by it.'

25. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bangalore Turf Club
Limited
versus
Regional
Director
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
(2014) 9 SCC 657 has observed that the
primary rule of interpretation of statutes,
though, is the literal rule, however, in case
of beneficial legislations the Court has to
adopt liberal rule of interpretation to ensure
that the benefits are extended to the
employees concerned. Para 16 of the said
judgment is extracted herein below:-

"16.
The
primary
rule
of
interpretation of statutes may be the literal
rule, however, in case of beneficial
legislations and legislations enacted for
the welfare of employees, workmen, this
Court has on numerous occasions adopted
the liberal rule of interpretation to ensure
that the benefits extend to those workers
who need to be covered based on the
intention of the legislature."

26. In relation to the issue concerning
payment of gratuity, Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Allahabad Bank &
Another versus All India Allahabad Bank
Retired Employees Association, (2010) 2
SCC 44, has observed that welfare statutes
always receive a liberal construction and
further that they are required to be so
5 All. Smt. Suman Singh Vs. Chairman, Ram Manohar Lohia Inst. Of Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors.
1569
construed
as
to
secure
the
relief
contemplated by the Statutes.

27. Making reference to another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Som Prakash Rekhi versus
Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further observed that
welfare benefits such as pension, payment
of provident fund and gratuity etc. are in
fulfillment of Directive Principles of the
State
Policy
as
enshrined
in
our
Constitution,
hence,
even
if
two
interpretations are permissible to such a
provision, the interpretation which furthers
the beneficial objects should be preferred.

28. Para 17 of the judgment in the
case of Allahabad Bank (supra) is quoted
hereunder:-

"17. Krishna Iyer, J. in Som
Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India1 stated
the principle in his inimitable style that a
benignant
provision
must
receive
a
benignant construction and, even if two
interpretations are permissible, that which
furthers the beneficial object should be
preferred. It has been further observed:
(SCC pp. 483-84, para 66)

"66. ... We live in a welfare
State, in a ''socialist' republic, under a
Constitution with profound concern for
the weaker classes including workers
(Part IV). Welfare benefits such as
pensions, payment of provident fund and
gratuity are in fulfillment of the directive
principles. The payment of gratuity or
provident fund should not occasion any
deduction from the pension as a ''set-off'.
Otherwise, the solemn statutory provisions
ensuring provident fund and gratuity
become illusory. Pensions are paid out of
regard for past meritorious services. The
root of gratuity and the foundation of
provident fund are different. Each one is a
salutary
benefaction
statutorily
guaranteed independently of the other.
Even assuming that by private treaty
parties had otherwise agreed to deductions
before the coming into force of these
beneficial enactments they cannot now be
deprivatory. It is precisely to guard against
such mischief that the non obstante and
overriding provisions are engrafted on
these statutes.""

29. From the legal principles
discussed above, we are not in doubt that
any beneficial provision has to be given a
liberal interpretation in a manner that
extends and advances the benefits intended
to be given to the beneficiary and not
otherwise. We are also clear in our mind
that in case two interpretations are possible
to such a provision, the interpretation which
farthers the benefit to the beneficiary has to be
preferred and if we examine the Government
Order dated 16.09.2010 in the light of these
legal principles, we are of the opinion that the
same has been interpreted by the Government
in the Department of Medical Education by
means of the Government Order dated
29.08.2014 in a manner which is not tenable.
The
words
''Pensionable
Service'
and
''Pensionable
Post'
occurring
in
the
Government Order dated 16.09.2010 are thus
to be interpreted to mean Post or Service either
covered by the Old Pension Scheme or even
by the New Pension Scheme. It is not in
dispute that the post and services in the RML
Institute are covered by the New Pension
Scheme.
Accordingly,
giving
restricted
meaning
to
the
word
''Pensionable
Post/Pensionable Service' as occurring in the
Government Order dated 16.09.2010, in our
considered opinion, cannot be accepted.

30. In view of the discussions made
and reasons given above, we find that the
1570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasons given by the Director while passing
the order dated 17.08.2015 are not tenable.

31. The learned Single Judge has also
agreed with the interpretation of the
Government Order in question as was
sought to be given by the State Government
in the Department of Medical Education.
Hence, we do not find ourselves persuaded
to be in agreement with the judgment
rendered by learned Single Judge which is
under appeal before us.

32. The Special Appeal is thus
allowed.

33. The order dated 17.02.2022
passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A
No. 2001877 of 2015 is hereby set aside.
The order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the
Director,
RML
Institute
and
the
Government Order dated 29.08.2014 issued
by
the
Stated
Government
in
the
Department of Medical Education are also
hereby quashed.

34. We further direct that the
appellant-petitioner shall be entitled to the
benefits of the Old Pension Scheme while
serving the RML Institute as well.

35. There will be no order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1570
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-A No. 5635 of 2023

Jaidev Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gyan Prakash Ojha, Sri Santosh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shyam Mani Shukla

Civil Law - Civil Services Regulation,
Article 368 - U.P. Palika (Centralized)
Services Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981
- Rule 2(10) - Uttar Pradesh Qualifying
Services for Pension and Validation Act,
2021. Post-Retiral Benefits - Petitioner
was appointed as a daily wager on a
class III post as Clerk on 25.09.1990 in
Nagar Nigam. He was regularized on
03.01.2006 and retired on 30.06.2022.
Petitioner prayed for the grant of all
retiral benefits, including gratuity and
regular pension, by counting his past
services
rendered
before
his
regularization.
Matter
squarely
covered by the law settled in case of
Prem Singh and Dr. Shyam Kumar.
Court
directed
the
Mukhya
Nagar
Adhikari,
Nagar
Nigam,
to
ensure
regular payment of pensionary and
other retiral benefits to the petitioner
under the Rules of 1981, counting his
entire
service,
including
the
duty
performed as a daily wager employee
of the Nagar Nigam, within a period of
three months. (Para 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Bhanu Pratap Sharma,
Special Appeal No. 97 of 2021

2. Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs St. of U.P., Writ-A No.
8968 of 2022

3. Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2019) 10
SCC 516

4. The Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Vs Devdatt
and 2 Others, Special Appeal Defective No. 482
of 2022

5. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs Church of
South India Trust Association CSI Cinod
Secretariat, Madras, 1992 (3) SCC 1