Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs Shri Narain Pandey

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

A short question involved in the instant special appeal is whether the respondent has rightly been awarded the benefit of pension by the learned Single Judge or that he was not holding the pensionable post in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (hereinafter referred to as ''UPSRTC'').

The respondent was initially appointed on 19.03.1963 on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector in the office of the then existing Transport Organization of the State of Uttar Pradesh known as Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways. The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) was formed on 01.06.1972.The post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was upgraded later on as Traffic Inspector Grade I and this later post was made interchangeable with the post of Junior Station Incharge. The respondent was given benefit of interchangeability of the post of GradeI and by order dated 27.11.1987 he was posted as Junior Station Incharge and was given seniority on the said post w.e.f. 05.05.1978 and therefore counting this period of service for the purpose of pension from 05.05.1978 till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.03.1993, he did have to his credit the requisite length of service and the learned Single Judge found not entitled for the benefit of pension. The respondent retired from the post of Senior Station Incharge on attaining the age of superannuation.

The plea of the appellant is that the respondent was actually posted as Junior Station Incharge in the year 1987 and he retired in the year 1993, therefore, he was not entitled for pension. Further argument is that the respondent was working on a unpensionable post in the U.P. Government Roadways and that giving of seniority w.e.f. 05.05.1978 on the post of Junior Station Incharge would not mean that he had worked on a pensionable post for the required length of service.

The award of pension to an employee either working in the Government Department or in the Corporation is governed with the rules and service conditions of such employee and normally, the rules in this regard provide a period of eligibility and the nature of service which should be attained by such employee so as to become entitled for pension.

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the respondent was initially appointed on a nonpensionable post of Assistant Traffic Inspector in the U.P,. Government Roadways. Had he been working on the said post through out, the question of award of pension could not have arisen irrespective of the fact of his length of service but in the meantime, UPSRTC was created and the service of the respondent stood transferred in the Corporation. While working with the Corporation, this post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was upgraded to the post of Traffic Inspector GradeI and was made interchangeable with the post of Junior Station Incharge. The respondent was also upgraded as Traffic Inspector GradeI and was given the posting on the post of the Junior Station Incharge. The post of the Junior Station Incharge is pensionable post which is not being disputed by either party.

The only defence which has been put by the appellant is that the respondent was though appointed/promoted on the post of the Junior Station Incharge but since it was done only for the first time in the year 1987, therefore, he is not entitled for pension because he lacks minimum required length of service and also he is not eligible in view of the G.O. dated 19.08.1993 and other Government Orders.

The aforesaid Government Order says that an employee to become entitled for pension must have been appointed on pensionable post within a period commencing from 01.06.1972 to June, 1981. A perusal of the posting order which is termed as appointment order reveals that a large number of persons were given postings including the respondent on the post of the Junior Station Incharge and in the same very order it was provided that these employees will reckon their seniority on the post of Junior Station Incharge right from the year 1978 i.e. 05.05.1978 and all those Junior Station Incharge who were promoted after 05.05.1978, they would be junior to the present Junior Station Incharge including the respondent.

The plea of the appellant that the posting order was issued on 29.11.1987 and the respondent not having worked on the post of the Junior Station Incharge prior to that, he cannot be given benefit of pension and that the recital aforesaid only protects his seniority on the post in question. This argument cannot be accepted.

It is agreed to both the parties that on putting eligible length of qualifying service , the employee became entitled for payment of pension which according to the learned counsel for the State was 20 years and has now been reduced to ten years.

The respondent having been treated to have been appointed on the post of Junior Station Incharge on 05.05.1978, though he might have been allowed to actually work on the said post in pursuance of letter dated 19.10.1987, he cannot be denied the benefit of the pension, particularly when the seniority has been given to him from the said date. For giving seniority on a particular post, it is essential that the incumbent must be treated to have been appointed on the said post, even if, he has actually not been appointed on the post from the date, from which the seniority has been given. But he will be deemed to have been appointed from the back date, may be notionally.

12.In the case of Union of India and others v. K.B. Rajoria, AIR 2000 SC 1819, the Apex Court while defining words ''regular service'' and ''notional promotion'' observed that:

�10. Third, the High Court erred in construing the words ''regular service in the grade'' as actual physical service. If that were so, then an ad hoc appointee who actually serves in the post could also claim to be qualified to be considered for the post of Director General. The High Court itself held that ''ad hoc service rendered by any of the parties would not count towards eligibility.�

We are, therefore, of the view that the respondent cannot be denied the benefit of pension and he is entitled for the same.

The respondent, thus while working on a pensionable post stood duly absorbed in the Corporation, therefore, he is entitled for pension.

For the reasons stated above, the special appeal is dismissed.

We on the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, however provide that in case any amount towards retiral benefit of a nonpensionable post had already been paid , the same shall be adjusted towards of arrears of pension. The arrears shall be paid within a period of three months and the respondent shall be paid regular pension with effect from the current month.

(Special Appeal dismissed)