# U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 555
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-07-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2020
- **Bench:** Hrishikesh Roy, Prashant Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/u-p-roadways-retired-officials-and-officers-association-v-state-of-u-p-anr-38022
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Whether the appellants who were the former employees of
Uttar Pradesh Roadways, a temporary department of the State
Government, held any pensionable post before or after their
absorption in the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation;
whether the members of the Roadways Karmchari Sanyukta
Parishad (RKSP) who were promoted after the cut-off date of
27.08.1982 were entitled to pension.
Headnotes†
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - U.P. Civil Service
Regulations - Article 350 - Roadways (Abolition of
Post and Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1982 - Road
Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers)
Service Regulations, 1981 - Regulations 4, 39 - U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than
Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 - Pension - When not
entitled to - Appellants, if held pensionable posts and thus,
entitled for receiving pension:
Held: No - Appellants are not entitled to pension as per GO dated
28.10.1960 as they were neither holding permanent posts in the
Roadways nor holding any pensionable posts - Appellants were
not covered under Article 350 of the Regulations as amended to
hold the pensionable posts inasmuch as despite amendment in
the first part of Article 350 of the Regulations, Note 3 thereof did
not suffer amendment which provides that service in non-gazetted
posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions in Uttar
Pradesh does not qualify in the case of persons appointed to
such posts on or after 15.11.1938 - Roadways is a Technical and
Industrial Institution, thus, the appellants are covered under Note
3 of Article 350 and hence, not entitled for pension - Pension is
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1369
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
a right and not a bounty - However, it can be claimed only when
permissible under the relevant rules/scheme - If an employee is
covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding
a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension nor can writ court
issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to
an employee not covered under the rules - Appellants having
received retiral benefits including the benefit under the Employees
Provident Fund Scheme cannot claim pension - A party to the
litigation cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate - Reliance
on the judgments of the High Court in Mirza Athar Beg, S.M. Fazil
and Shri Narain Pandey misplaced - Only State Government
employees absorbed in the Corporation shall be entitled to
pension - Employees of Roadways who were not holding any
pensionable post prior to their deputation or absorption in the
Corporation are not entitled to pension, as their service conditions
in the erstwhile Roadways did not provide that they are entitled to
pension - Members of the RKSP promoted after the cut-off date
of 27.08.1982 are not entitled to pension. [Paras 29, 35, 40, 49]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,526 of 61,361. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39526 for what follows._

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1368 : 2024 INSC 555
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association
v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2020)
26 July 2024
[Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellants who were the former employees of
Uttar Pradesh Roadways, a temporary department of the State
Government, held any pensionable post before or after their
absorption in the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation;
whether the members of the Roadways Karmchari Sanyukta
Parishad (RKSP) who were promoted after the cut-off date of
27.08.1982 were entitled to pension.
Headnotes†
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - U.P. Civil Service
Regulations - Article 350 - Roadways (Abolition of
Post and Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1982 - Road
Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers)
Service Regulations, 1981 - Regulations 4, 39 - U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than
Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 - Pension - When not
entitled to - Appellants, if held pensionable posts and thus,
entitled for receiving pension:
Held: No - Appellants are not entitled to pension as per GO dated
28.10.1960 as they were neither holding permanent posts in the
Roadways nor holding any pensionable posts - Appellants were
not covered under Article 350 of the Regulations as amended to
hold the pensionable posts inasmuch as despite amendment in
the first part of Article 350 of the Regulations, Note 3 thereof did
not suffer amendment which provides that service in non-gazetted
posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions in Uttar
Pradesh does not qualify in the case of persons appointed to
such posts on or after 15.11.1938 - Roadways is a Technical and
Industrial Institution, thus, the appellants are covered under Note
3 of Article 350 and hence, not entitled for pension - Pension is
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1369
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
a right and not a bounty - However, it can be claimed only when
permissible under the relevant rules/scheme - If an employee is
covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding
a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension nor can writ court
issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to
an employee not covered under the rules - Appellants having
received retiral benefits including the benefit under the Employees
Provident Fund Scheme cannot claim pension - A party to the
litigation cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate - Reliance
on the judgments of the High Court in Mirza Athar Beg, S.M. Fazil
and Shri Narain Pandey misplaced - Only State Government
employees absorbed in the Corporation shall be entitled to
pension - Employees of Roadways who were not holding any
pensionable post prior to their deputation or absorption in the
Corporation are not entitled to pension, as their service conditions
in the erstwhile Roadways did not provide that they are entitled to
pension - Members of the RKSP promoted after the cut-off date
of 27.08.1982 are not entitled to pension. [Paras 29, 35, 40, 49]
Case Law Cited
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mirza Athar Beg, 2011 (2) ALJ 327; The Managing
Director, U.P.S.R.T.C v. S.M. Fazil & 03 others [W.P. No. 5440 of
2000 (S/B)]; U.P.S.R.T.C & Ors. v. Shri Narain Pandey [2009 :
AHC-LKO : 3978-DB] - distinguished.
Union of India & Ors. v. M.K. Sarkar [2009] 16 SCR 249 : (2010) 2
SCC 59; Bachai Lal v. U. P. S. R. T. C., Allahabad and others (1991)
2 UPLBEC1095; General Manager, Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao &
Ors. [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 212 : (1997) 8 SCC 767; National Council
of Educational Research and Training v. Shyam Babu Maheshwari
& Ors. [2011] 7 SCR 548 : (2011) 6 SCC 412; Krishena Kumar
v. Union of India [1990] 3 SCR 352 : (1990) 4 SCC 207; Union
of India v. Kailas (1998) 9 SCC 721; V.K. Ramamurthy v. Union
of India & Anr. [1996] Supp. 4 SCR 583 : (1996) 10 SCC 73; All
India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association & Ors. v. Union
of India & Anr. [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 256 : (1992) Supp 1 SCC
664; The Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees
& Ors. v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, through its Chairman
& Anr. [1990] 2 SCR 156 : (1990) 2 SCC 472; Prabhu Narain
v. State of U.P. (2004) 13 SCC 662; Rajasthan Road Transport
Corporation & Anr. v. Mohini Devi [2013] 3 SCR 464 : (2013) 11
SCC 603 - referred to.
1370
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950; U.P. Civil Service
Regulations; Roadways (Abolition of Post and Absorption of
Employees) Rules, 1982; Road Transport Corporation Employees
(other than officers) Service Regulations, 1981; U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service
Regulations, 1981.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Pension; Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation (UPSRTC); State Roadways Transport Corporation;
Uttar Pradesh Roadways; Non-gazetted posts; Deputation;
Absorption; Temporary department; Temporary employees
Permanent posts; Pensionable post; Provident Fund Scheme;
Employees Provident Fund Scheme; Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme; Approbate; Reprobate; Government orders; Non-gazetted
posts; Government Technical and Industrial Institutions; Roadways;
Cut-off date; Promotion/promoted after cut-off date; Retirement;
Retirement benefits; Retiral benefits; Permanent employees.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2016 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in SA No. 245 of 2003
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 896, 898, 957, 959-965, 897, 895, 899-901, 910,
902, 912, 909, 913, 958, 915, 966, 914, 832, 967, 905, 907, 903,
911, 904, 906 and 908 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 8044 of 2024.
Appearances for Parties
Rakesh Khanna, U.K. Uniyal, Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv., S.N.
Pandey, Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Aditya Pushkar Khanna, Ms. Ramya
Khanna, Dr. Vikash Pahal, Ms. Somya Pandey, Ms. Deep Aishwarya,
Chander Shekhar Ashri, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg,
Dhananjay Garg, Ishaan Tiwari, Chanakya Gupta, R.P. Bansal, B.
K. Pal, Salaj Kumar Rai, Vivek Gupta, Mrinmay Bhattmewara, Mrs.
Samprati Bhattmewara, Ankit Verma, Shalabh Kaushik, Amit Singh,
Rajvir Singh Bhati, Ankur Yadav, Pramod Kumar Singh, Mahendra
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1371
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
Singh, Vijay Pal, Ms. Kajal Kumari, Gajendra Kumar, Ajay Kumar
Talesara, Anurag Dubey, Ms. Anu Sawhney, Meenesh Dubey, Ms.
Maitri Goal, Ms. Geetanjali Setia, Ms. Manisha Yadav, Bhupendra
Kumar Bharadwaj, S. R. Setia, Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, Kumar Mihir,
Nishit Agrawal, Shadab Khan, Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka
Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Ms. Nidhi Singh, Aditya Pushkal Khanna,
Dr. Vikas Pahal, Ms. Somya Pendey, Manan Verma, Ankit Shah, Mrs.
D. Bharathi Reddy, Naveen Kumar Tripathi, Sanjay Kumar Pandey,
Ms. Saroj Tripathi, Dhruv Surana, Arya Hardik, Rohit Amit Sthalekar,
Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Suraj Singh,
Kamlendra Mishra, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Delay condoned in filing SLP(C) Diary No. 10240 of 2020 and leave
granted.
2.
Abatement is set aside and applications for substitution are allowed.
Application(s) for intervention is allowed.
3.
By this common judgment a batch of civil appeals arising out of the
common order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in different writ applications and special appeals is disposed of.
4.
Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2020 preferred by UP Roadways Retired
Officials and Officers Association is taken as the lead case.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 894 OF 2020
5.
In this civil appeal challenge is to the common order dated 24.11.2016
passed by the High Court in Special Appeal No. 685 of 2014 and
other connected matters which in turn arose out of common order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 07.07.2014
in Writ Application No. 63469 of 2012 (Suresh Chandra vs. State of
U.P. through Secretary & Ors.) and 51 connected writ applications.
The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, under the
impugned judgment have dismissed the special appeals and writ
applications holding that the appellants/petitioners do not hold the
pensionable post and, thus, are not entitled for receiving pension.
1372
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6.
The issue falling for consideration is whether the appellants who
are the former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, a temporary
department of the State Government, are holding any pensionable
post before or after their absorption in the U.P. State Roadways
Transport Corporation.1
Government orders regarding service under U.P. Roadways and
thereafter U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation
7.
In 1947, Uttar Pradesh Roadways2 was created as a temporary
department of the State Government for providing public transport
facilities. Since the department itself was temporary, the employees
working therein were also appointed temporarily and were not
members of regular service.
7.1 On 16.09.1960, a Government Order3 was issued providing
service conditions of the Roadways employees which were
different than the service conditions of employees working in
different Government departments.
7.2. On 28.10.1960, another GO was issued providing for pension
to the permanent employees of the erstwhile Roadways. It was
mentioned in this order that remaining non-gazetted employees
of the Roadways (who are not permanent) would be entitled for
benefits under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme.
7.3. On 01.06.1972, the Corporation was created under Section 3
of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950.4
7.4. On 05.07.1972, a GO was issued treating all the employees
of the Roadways on deputation with the Corporation without
specifying the period of deputation and also assuring them that
their service conditions in the Corporation will not be inferior as
compared to their service conditions prior to their absorption
in the Corporation.
1
'Corporation'
2
'the Roadways'
3
'GO'
4
'Act, 1950'
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1373
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
7.5. On 20.04.1997, Article 350 of U.P. Civil Service Regulations5
was amended with retrospective effect. However, no amendment
was made in Note 3 of Article 350 which provides that nongazetted post in Government Technical Industrial Institution is
not qualified for pension.
7.6. On 19.06.1981, the Corporation framed service regulations
in exercise of power under Section 45(2)(c) of the Act, 1950.
7.7. On 28.04.1982, the Roadways (Abolition of Post and Absorption
of Employees) Rules, 1982 were framed providing for absorption
of all employees of the Roadways in the service of the
Corporation w.e.f. 28.07.1982.
Appellants' Case
8.
There are three sets of appellants segregated on the basis of the
date of appointment:
(1) Those who were appointed in the Roadways prior to the G.O.
dated 16.09.1960 and have retired.
(2) Those who were appointed after 16.09.1960 but prior to creation
of the Corporation as on 01.06.1972 and have retired.
(3) Those who were appointed after 01.06.1972 when the
Corporation was created and have retired.
9.
Admittedly, the appellants employees have already received their
entire post-retiral benefits immediately after their retirement decades
ago without any protest or claim that they hold a pensionable post. The
appellants started claiming pension after the Division Bench judgment
of the High Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Mirza Athar Beg 6 upholding
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.08.2010 passed
in W.P. No. 7728 (S/S) of 1996. The appellants' claim is also based
on other two judgments of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of
The Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C vs. S.M. Fazil & 03 others7
(W.P. No. 5440 of 2000 (S/B) and in the matter of U.P.S.R.T.C &
5
'Regulations'
6
2011 (2) ALJ 327
7
W.P. No. 5440 of 2000 (S/B)
1374
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Ors. Vs. Shri Narain Pandey 8 in Special Appeal No. 40 of 2007. A
Special Leave Petition (SLP (c) No. 7709/2011) against the judgment
in the matter of Mirza Athar Beg was dismissed by a non-speaking
order dated 10.07.2013.
10. The appellants submitted representation basing their claim in the
line of Mirza Athar Beg (supra). However, the representation was
rejected subsequent to which the subject writ petition was filed.
Appellants' submissions
11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that the appellants are entitled for pension in terms of the Government
Order dated 16.09.1960 as they were appointed prior to establishment
of the Corporation in the year 1972. According to them, once the
appellants have been made permanent in the Corporation vide
Government Orders dated 16.09.1960 and 28.10.1960 they should
be treated to be holding a pensionable post. It was also their case
that Article 350 of U.P. Civil Service Regulations was amended by a
Notification dated 20.04.1977 whereby the word 'Post' was replaced by
the word 'Establishment' and as such employees of all establishments
under the State Government are deemed to be working on a
pensionable post unless the establishment is excluded. Therefore,
on a conjoint reading of Government Order dated 28.10.1960 with
the amendment made in the year 1977 in Article 350, the appellants
are entitled to pension.
12. The appellants also relied on the judgment in the matter of Mirza
Athar Beg (supra), S.M. Fazil (supra) & Narain Pandey (supra).
The main focus of the appellants' claim is on the amendment to the
Article 350 of the Regulations, after which, according to the appellants,
Government has not issued any order excluding the establishment
in which the appellants were employed and holding a pensionable
post. It is also argued that after the establishment of the Corporation
under Section 3 of the Act, 1950, no rule or regulation has been
framed in exercise of power under Section 44 denying pension to
the appellants. Therefore, the general provisions under Article 350 of
the Regulations would be applicable and the appellants are entitled
for pension.
8
2009 : AHC-LKO : 3978-DB
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1375
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
13. Apropos the objection that the writ petition was filed belatedly,
after decades from the date of retirement, it is submitted that the
appellants have recurring cause of action and delay in filing the writ
petition is not fatal.
14. Per contra, Ms Garima Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing
for the Corporation vehemently argued that all the appellants have
already opted for and availed the post-retiral benefits under the
Employees Provident Fund Scheme, therefore, their present claim
preferred after huge delay ranging between 8 to 32 years has rightly
been dismissed by the High Court. Reference is made to Union of
India & Ors. Vs. M.K. Sarkar .9
15. Ms. Prasad would distinguish the fact situation in the matters of
Mirza Athar Beg (supra), S.M. Fazil (supra) & Narain Pandey
(supra) by pointing out that in these cases the High Court has not
considered the effect of Note 3 of Article 350 of the Regulations which
has neither been amended nor deleted even by the amendment
dated 20.04.1977. It is further submitted that the Roadways was
an establishment having workshops both major and smaller, thus,
included in the category of technical institution as has been held
by the Allahabad High Court in the judgment rendered in Bachai
Lal v. U. P. S. R. T. C., Allahabad and others.10 The Roadways
is also an industry according to the test prescribed in the matter
of General Manager, Telecom vs. A. Srinivasa Rao & Ors.11
Therefore, the non-gazetted post in the Roadways did not qualify
for pension in view of Note 3 of Article 350 of the Regulations.
It is then argued that the service conditions of employees of the
Roadways as existing prior to their absorption in the Corporation
were never protected by GO dated 05.07.1972 under which the
appellants are not entitled for pension as they have never worked on
any pensionable post as indicated in para 1 of GO dated 28.10.1960
till their absorption in the Corporation w.e.f 28.04.1982. Further
distinguishing the above three cases on which the appellants have
placed reliance, it is argued that the appellants in the three above
cited cases were working on pensionable post even as per GO
9
[2009] 16 SCR 249 : (2010) 2 SCC 59
10
(1991) 2 UPLBEC1095
11
[1997] Supp. 5 SCR 212 : (1997) 8 SCC 767
1376
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
dated 28.10.1960 whereas none of the appellants in the present
batch of appeals have worked on any pensionable post as per
the said GO, therefore, the appellants derive no benefit out of the
above three cited cases.
16. In respect of the employees appointed after creation of the Corporation
w.e.f. 01.06.1972 it is argued that such appellants are not entitled to
the benefit of pension on the basis of GO dated 05.07.1972 or the
provisions of the Regulations relating to employees of the erstwhile
Roadways sent on deputation to the Corporation and thereafter
absorbed therein.
17. In respect of the appellants who were appointed subsequent to
01.06.1972 i.e. after creation of the Corporation, the State Government
subsequently issued GO dated 20.10.2004 according approval for
payment of pension to those employees who had been appointed
on pensionable post in the Corporation till 18.06.1981. Therefore,
such appellants who were never appointed/worked on pensionable
post as per GO dated 28.10.1960 till 18.06.1981, are not entitled
to pension.
18. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition
on the ground of delay and laches; waiver and acquiescence but
at the same time proceeded to decide the petitions on merits and
after threadbare discussion of the applicable GOs and Regulations
rejected the claim on merits. Learned Single Judge distinguished the
case of the present batch of the appellants from that of the Mirza
Athar Beg (supra), S.M. Fazil (supra) & Narain Pandey (supra).
19. On appeal before the Division Bench, the claim of the appellants
was once again dismissed and the order passed by the learned
Single Judge has been upheld on all material issues including the
appellants' claim on the basis of parity vis-à-vis the earlier cases in
the matter of Mirza Athar Beg (supra), S.M. Fazil (supra) & Narain
Pandey (supra).
ANALYSIS
20. The Roadways was created as a temporary department in 1947.
A Government Order was issued on 16.09.1960 providing service
conditions of the Roadways employees. The said GO is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1377
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
"G.O. No. 3014 D/XXX- 135/59 dated Sept. 16, 1960
Subject: Terms and conditions of service of temporary
employees in the U.P. Roadways - Revisions of.
I am directed to say that the question of revising the terms
and conditions of service of the Roadways employee,
which is a nationalized commercial undertaking and has to
work in conditions different from those prevailing in regular
government offices, has been under the consideration of
Government for some time past.
The passenger and goods services have to run
irrespective of the fact whether it is a Sunday or a festival.
The schedule of passenger services run by the State
Undertaking cannot be altered off an on. In order to keep
the Roadways services going the maintenance and repairs
of vehicles has to be attend to even at odd hours at the
workshops. At present the conditions of service of the
employees of the U.P. Government Roadways and the
Central Workshop, Kanpur are governed by the various
rules and standing orders of Government applicable to
other temporary government servants under the rule
making powers of the Governor. In view of the special
service conditions of employees of the Roadways it seems
necessary to evolve a new set of service conditions for
its employees which may be compatible with the nature
of work and functions of the organization. Accordingly, in
super session of all previous orders on the subject, the
Governor has been pleased to pass the following orders
prescribed revised terms and conditions of service of
temporary employees of the U.P. Roadways including
those detailed in para 2 below. The revised terms and
conditions of service shall be applicable to all future
entrants in the Roadways organization and shall be
enforced in the manner mentioned hereinafter in the
case of temporary employee including those on the work
charge strength and paid on monthly basis.
(1) All temporary employees except those referred to in para
2 shall get one day's rest in every period of seven days in
accordance with the rules to be framed by Government.
1378
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
In case the employees is deprived of any of the days or
rest, he shall be allowed within the same or following
month compensation holidays of equal number of the
days of rest so lost.
(2) They shall be entitled to get one days paid holidays
for every 20 days of work performed by them during the
previous calender year, subject to the condition that the
employee has worked for a period of 240 days or more
during the previous calender year. In case the employees
is not able to avail of full or part of the leave admissible to
him during the calender year, it will be carried over to the
following year, subject to a maximum of 30 days.
(3) They shall get five days festival holidays in a calender
year as prescribed by Government and subject to the rules
to be framed for the purpose.
(4) They shall be paid extra wages at the rate of twice of
ordinary rate of wages in respect of work performed by
them beyond the prescribed hours of work.
(5) Their services are liable to termination on one month's
notice on either side, or one month's pay in lieu thereof.
(6) In other respect the conditions of service will remain
the same as at present.
The revised terms and conditions of services mentioned
in para 1 above shall not apply to the following category
of employees:-
(a) All employees working in the offices establishment of
the Asstt. General Manager, General Manager, Service
Manager, Chief Mechanical Engineer, Roadways Central
Workshop, Kanpur and the Head Quarter Office of the
Transport Commissioner.
(b) Supervisory staff of the rank of Junior Station Incharge
and above on the traffic side;
(c) Technical staff of the rank of Junior Foreman and above
on the engineer side;
The above three categories of Roadways staff will continue
to be treated as regular government servants and will be
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1379
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
entitled to the benefits admissible to any other government
servant of the same category.
3. The Roadways and Central Workshop employees to
whom the revised service rules are being made applicable
shall be entitled to the provident fund benefits according
to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act.
For this necessary orders have already been issued
separately in G.O. No. 1488-D/XXX 2198/59 dated July,
29, 1960. Immediate step may please be taken for the
implementation of the orders issued in the above G.O. The
employees governed by the new terms and conditions of
service will continue to get facilities for medical treatment
so far enjoyed by them. All future entrants shall also be
entitled to facilities for medical treatment admissible to
Government servants. The canteen and rest house facilities
as may be prescribed by government shall also be made
available to them in course of time.
4. These order shall come into force w.e.f. October 1, 1960
and shall apply to all future entrants in the service of the
Roadways organization and also the existing temporary
employees who accept to continue to work on the revised
terms and conditions of service. The status of Roadways
employees already made permanent remains unaffected.
All the existing temporary employees except those
mentioned in para 2 above may be asked to indicate in
writing if the new service conditions mentioned above are
acceptable to them. Those who accept the new terms and
conditions of service will be required to fill in a separate
acceptance for which will be kept with their service records.
If, however, any of the employees do not accept the new
terms their services are to be terminated in accordance
with the terms of their employment. I am to suggest that
the implications of the revised orders may be explained
to all concerned by the General Managers and Asstt.
General Mangers and Chief Mechanical Engineer and
that necessary action may please be intimated forthwith
in order to implement the above orders."
(Emphasis supplied)
1380
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
21. Thereafter another GO was issued on 28.10.1960 providing for
pension to the permanent employees of the Roadways. This GO
was issued under Note 3 of Article 350 of the Regulations. We shall
first reproduce Article 350 of the Regulations and thereafter GO
dated 28.10.1960:
"350. All establishments whether temporary or permanent,
shall be deemed to be pensionable establishments;
Provided that it is open to the State Government to rule
that the service in any establishment does not qualify for
pension.
1. Service in Dak Bungalow and District Garden
Establishments does not qualify.
2. The service of a Patwari, whether appointed before or
after the abolition of the Patwari or Village Officers' Cases
and Funds, does not qualify in any case in which it did
not qualify prior to that abolition.
3. Service in non-gazetted posts in Government Technical
and Industrial institutions in the Uttar Pradesh does not
qualify in the case of persons appointed to such posts on
or after November 15,1938."
Exceptions-- This rule does not apply to the posts declared
pensionable in Shram (Kha) Vibhag G.O.No.810 (E)
XXXVI-B-- 106/56, dated May 29, 1963 and Udyog (Gha)
Vibhag G.O.No.375-ED/XVII-D-AQ-19-ED,60, dated JUNE
5, 1963."
"GO No. 3567-P/XXX-2198/99 dated 28.10.1960 - In
continuation of G.O. No. 30140/XXX-135-V/1959 dated
16.9.1960, I am directed to say that the question or
declaration the permanent posts in the Roadways
Organization (including the Roadways Central Workshop
Kanpur) as pensionable has been under consideration of
Government for some time past. In this connection, the
Governor has been pleased to order that the permanent
gazetted and non-gazetted incumbents of the following
three categories would be entitled to the contributory 10
Provident Fund cum Pension Rules:-
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1381
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
(a) The employees working in the office establishment of
the Asstt. General Manager, General Managers, Service
Managers, Chief Mechanical Engineer, Roadways Central
workshop, Kanpur and the Headquarter office of the
Transport Commissioner.
(b) Supervisory staff of the rank of Junior Station Incharge
and above on the traffic side.
(c) Technical staff of the rank of Junior Foreman and above
on the Engineering side.
2. The Governor has been further pleased to order,
under note 3 Below Article 350 of the Civil Service
Regulations that the rest of the permanent non-gazetted
Employees both in the traffic and engineering sections of
the organization, would be treated as non-pensionable
posts referred to above, will be eligible for Provident Fund
benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Employees
Provident Fund Act.
3. I am also to add that Temporary Employment of the
categories mentioned in para 1 above will be entitled
to Provident fund benefits as provided under the
Employees Provident Funds Act. As and when they
became permanent, they will have the option to elect the
contributory Provident Fund cum Pension Benefits in lieu
of Employees Provident Fund.
4. As regards the grant of Provident Fund Benefits to other
temporary and work charges employees of the Roadways
organization necessary orders have already been conveyed
to you in G.O. No. 14880/XXX-219/59 dated 29.7.1960.
 Sd/-
Jt. Secy.
Copy forwarded under U.P. Parivahan Ayukta (Lekha)
U.P. Lucknow endorsement NO. C-935FA/594FA/57 dated
1.11.1960 to all the General Managers, Asstt. General
Managers, Service Managers, Accounts Officers and all
other concerned for information and necessary action."
(Emphasis supplied)
1382
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
22. A bare reading of Article 350 would manifest that service in nongazetted posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions
in the State of Uttar Pradesh does not qualify for pension and it will
be covered under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
23. The State Government felt it necessary to evolve a new set of
service conditions considering the nature of duties and functions of
the Roadways. In the above quoted GO dated 28.10.1960, the State
Government considered and declared some permanent gazetted
and non-gazetted posts of the Roadways to be entitled for pension.
Clauses (2) & (3) of GO dated 28.10.1960 clearly provided that only
those covered in clause (1) of the GO would be entitled to pension
whereas the rest of the permanent non-gazetted employees both
in the traffic and engineering sections of the Roadways would be
treated as non-pensionable posts and will be eligible for provident
fund benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Employees
Provident Fund Act. This provision made a specific reference to Note
3 of Article 350 of the Regulations.
24. It was also provided that temporary employment of the categories
mentioned in para 1 will be entitled to provident fund. However,
as and when they became permanent, they will have the option
to elect the contributory provident fund cum pension benefits in
lieu of employees' provident fund. In yet another circular dated
21.04.1961, it was again clarified that the posts mentioned in clause
(1) of GO dated 28.10.1960 should be treated as pensionable and
those temporary employees falling in the said clause shall also
be treated as pensionable from the date they were converted into
permanent post.
25. The Corporation was constituted under Section 3 of the Act, 1950
w.e.f. 01.06.1972. By GO dated 07.06.1972 all the employees of
the erstwhile Roadways holding permanent posts as per GO dated
28.10.1960 were declared entitled for pension except the following:
(i)
Those working on daily wages;
(ii)
Those appointed on ad-hoc basis;
(iii) Those who had not completed minimum service period
prescribed for the post;
(iv) Those holding posts which were not declared pensionable;
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1383
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
(v)
Those who had been removed from service after departmental
inquiry and those had been found guilty of criminal charges.
Subsequent to GO dated 05.07.1972, officers/employees of the
Roadways and the officers and staff of the Roadways working in
the Office of the Transport Commissioner, whether permanent or
temporary were considered to be on deputation under the existing
terms and conditions of their services. The permanent staff of the
Roadways were considered on deputation up till the date of their
absorption permanently in the Corporation. It was also mentioned in
the GO dated 05.07.1972 that the Government assures the Roadways
employees that whenever service conditions of the employees of the
Corporation shall be framed, the same shall not be inferior to the
service conditions applicable to them under the Roadways at the time
of absorption. The GO dated 05.07.1972 is reproduced hereunder:
"No. 3414/TEES-2-170 N/72
Sender
Shri Girija Prasad Pandey
Commissioner & Secretary
Government of Uttar Pradesh
To
Chief Manager
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Lucknow
Dated: Lucknow July 5, 1972
Transport Section-2
Sub: Constitution of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation and merger of the officers/employees of the
Transport Organisation.
Sir,
After merger of the officers/employees working under
Uttar Pradesh Roadways with State Road Transport
Corporation, in connection with merger of services under
the Corporation, I have been directed to issue the following,
amending the Government order no. 3000/30-2-1 70/72
dated June 7, 1972:
1384
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(1) According to the provision of para (1) (A) of the above
Government order, all those permanent or temporary
officers/employees who before the constitution of State
Road Transport Corporation were in the services of State
Roadways, their services would be considered in the
Corporation on deputation. For this deputation no period
is being fixed now.
(2) The State Road Transport Corporation has under
section 45 of the Transport Corporation Act have not made
rules about the service conditions till now in connection
with the officers and employees under it. Therefore,
leaving the above discussed Annexure 1 (1) A of the above
Government order dated June 7, 1972, the remaining
annexures would be considered dismissed. But whenever
the Corporation would make rules regarding service
conditions, then in them this assurance of the Government
would be included that the service condition of the officers/
employees under the Corporation in any condition would
not be contemptuous than those conditions which were
available to them under the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways
and their government service period, their seniority under
the corporation, promotion, fixation of pay, right concerning
leave and financial benefits would be considered in that
way only as they would have remained in their being in
government service.
Yours faithfully
(Girija Prasad Pandey)
Commissioner & Secretary
No. 2114 (1)/Tees-2-170N/72
Copy submitted to Accountant General, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, for information and necessary
action.
By order,
(Bhagwan Swaroop Saxena)
Dy. Secretary
No. 3414(2)/Tees-2-170N/72
Copy submitted to the following for information: -
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1385
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
(1) Transport Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
(2) Finance (Expenditure-7) Section
By order,
(Bhagwan Swaroop Saxena)
Dy. Secretary"
26. In exercise of power under Section 45(2)(c) of the Act, 1950, the
State Government framed the Road Transport Corporation Employees
(other than officers) Service Regulations, 1981.12 Regulations 4 and
39 of the Regulations, 1981 being relevant are reproduced hereunder:
"4. Option by the employees of the erstwhile Government
Roadways Department and other employees. - (1) An
employee of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways
Department who was placed on deputation with the
Corporation and who has or is deemed to have offered for
absorption in the Service of the Corporation in accordance
with Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways
Organisation (Abolition of Posts and Absorptions of
Employee) Rules, 1982 ( hereinafter referred to as the
said, Rules), shall with effect from August 28, 1982, and so
absorbed, and shall, accordingly cease to be an employee
of the State Government with effect from the said date.
Provided that the terms and conditions of service of the
employees so absorbed in the Service of the Corporation
shall, subject to the provisions of G.O. No. 3414/XXX2-170-N-72, dated July 5, 1972, and the said rules be
governed by these regulations.
(i) Existing employees, who are not covered by
sub-regulation (1) or those who are not exempted
under Regulation 2, shall within one month of the
commencement of these regulations, inform the
appointing authority or such authority as the General
Manager may in this behalf appoint whether or not
they want to be governed by these regulations.
(ii) If they opt or fail to exercise their option for
being governed by these regulations, their terms
12
'Regulations, 1981'
1386
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and conditions of appointment, so far as they are
inconsistent with these regulations, shall stand
rescinded:
Provided that, in respect of workmen where any of the
provisions of these regulations is less favourable than
the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948, the Factories Act, 1948 or of any other Act
applicable to them, the provisions of such Act shall apply.
(iii) If such persons do not opt for being governed by
these regulations, their services may be terminated
in accordance with the terms of their appointment."
"39. Pension and other retirement benefits-(1)(i)
Subject to the provisions of clause (ii) of this subregulation, an employee of the Corporation shall not
be entitled to pension, but he shall be entitled to the
retirement benefits mentioned in sub-regulation (2).
(ii) A person, who was the employee of the State
Government in the erstwhile U.P. Government
Roadways and has opted for the service of the
Corporation, shall be entitled to pension and other
retirement benefits in terms of the G.O. No.3414/302170-N-72, dated July 5, 1972.
(iii) Such employees who have come in the service
of the Corporation on pensionable posts on 1st
June, 1972 or after that and now those posts have
been declared non-pensionable under this Rule; the
Corporation would contribute in the Provident Fund
of such employees as desired under the provisions
of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subregulation (1) an employee (including an employee
who was in the service of the State Government in the
erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways Department),
shall be entitled to the following retirement benefits:
(i) Employees Provident Fund or the General
Provident Fund, as the case may be;
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
1387
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v.
State of U.P. & Anr.
(ii) Gratuity in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 or the relevant Government Rules, as may
be applicable;
(iii) Amount due under Group Insurance Scheme,
1976;
(iv) One free family pass in a year for journey within
the State;
(v) A free family pass for his return to his home from
the place of posting at the time of retirement in case
he does not accept railway fare;
(vi) Any other benefit that may be allowed by the
Corporation from time to time. "
27. Regulations 4 and 39 of the Regulations, 1981 as extracted above
made it very clear that an employee of the Corporation shall not
be entitled to pension, but he shall be entitled to the retiral benefits
mentioned in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 39. Only those
employees of the State Government working in the Roadways who
have opted for services of the Corporation shall be entitled to pension
and other retirement benefits in terms of GO dated 05.07.1972.
It is to be understood that there were temporary and permanent
employees working in the Roadways and there were regular State
Government employees who were also working in the Roadways.
Under Regulation 39, quoted above, it is clearly demarcated that
those State Government employees who have opted for service of
the Corporation will be entitled for pension, otherwise an employee of
the Corporation shall not be entitled to pension and these employees
will be entitled to retirement benefits as mentioned in sub-Regulation
(2) of Regulation 39.