The Special Appeal by the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, challenging the Single Judge's order directing payment of revised retiral benefits to retired employees under the 6th Pay Commission, was dismissed as there was no error in the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 693 of 2018
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others …….Appellants Versus
Dan Singh Surya & others …….Respondents
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.C. Pande, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the respondents-writ petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Dated: 09th May, 2019
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, C.J. (Oral)
This appeal is preferred by the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1275 of 2017 dated 20.07.2018, whereby the Writ Petition was allowed.
2
Nadu: (2013) 2 SCC 775 , opined that financial constraints of the Corporations were relevant while giving the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission to its employees; there was no anomaly in the orders dated 15.10.2009 and 02.02.2010; and the writ petitioners-employees’ claim for payment of 6th Pay Commission pay-scales from 01.01.2006 was dismissed. With regards those employees who had retired from service between 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009, who were only given notional benefit for computation of their retiral benefits, the learned Single Judge noted that there was a recommendation of the Managing Director that such benefits (notional benefit) be extended to the retired employees. Consequently, a mandamus was issued to the respondents therein (appellants herein) to give notional benefit to the retired employees as were given to other employees.
3
30.08.2018, the learned Single Judge allowed the correction application and directed the word “revised pension” be substituted with “revised retiral benefits”. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C. J.) 09.05.2019 09.05.2019
NISHANT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court's order directing the Corporation to pay revised retiral benefits to retired employees under the 6th Pay Commission is sustainable.
Whether the financial constraints of the Corporation are a valid ground to deny the payment of ratified retiral benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association vs. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶13
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu: (2013) 2 SCC 775 · Who else cites this
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation
Dan Singh Surya
Ramesh Ranganathan
N.S. Dhanik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
