Allowed

Luxmi Prasad v. State of U P through Secretary

Uttarakhand HC4 Jul 2022WPSS/247/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a retired employee of U.P. State Roadways seeking pension, the Single Judge, relying on SPA No. 40 of 2014, allowed the petition. The Court rejected the respondent's plea of delay and laches, directed the Corporation to examine the claim within eight weeks, and ordered passage of appropriate order within two weeks thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The special leave petition and writ petition are allowed; the Corporation is directed to examine the claim for pension and pass an appropriate order.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPSS. No. 247 of 2022
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for
the petitioner.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional
C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel
for respondent no. 4.
Heard learned counsels for the
parties and perused the record.
According to petitioner, he was
appointed as Cleaner in erstwhile U.P.
State Roadways w.e.f. 01.01.1949. It is
further his case that he was confirmed
on the post of Cleaner w.e.f. 01.04.1956
and thereafter he was promoted as Fitter
on 01.04.1962. Ultimately, he retired on
31.05.1988 from the post of Mechanic,
after rendering 39 years of service.
It is not in dispute that U.P. State

Roadways
was
succeeded
by
a

Corporation, namely, U.P. State Road

Transport Corporation, which came into
existence in 1972. Thus, petitioner
served in the said Corporation between
1972 to 1988. The reliefs clause of the writ
petition are extracted below: -
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant/ release pension of the petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.05.1988 with interest, in the light of order dated 10.01.2017 passed in Special Appeal No.40 of 2014 and other connected Special Appeals (contained in Annexure-8 to this writ petition).
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant arrear of pension, from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of actual payment, of the petitioner is released with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Division Bench of this Court
vide judgment dated 10.01.2017
rendered in SPA No. 40 of 2014 and
connected cases, has directed the
Corporation to examine claim of all such
employees for pension, who were
appointed prior to 1960. Relevant extract of the said
judgment is reproduced below: - “43. Therefore, having regard to the above discussion, we dispose of the Appeals as follows: InSpecial Appeal AppealsNos.56 of

Transport Corporation, which came into

existence in 1972. Thus, petitioner

served in the said Corporation between

1972 to 1988.
The
reliefs
clause
of
the
writ

petition are extracted below: -

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondents to grant/ release pension of the
petitioner from the date of his retirement
i.e. 31.05.1988 with interest, in the light of
order dated 10.01.2017 passed in Special
Appeal No.40 of 2014 and other connected
Special Appeals (contained in Annexure-8
to this writ petition).

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondents to grant arrear of pension,
from
the
date
of
retirement
of
the
petitioner till the date of actual payment, of
the petitioner is released with interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that Division Bench of this Court

vide
judgment
dated
10.01.2017

rendered in SPA No. 40 of 2014 and

connected
cases,
has
directed
the

Corporation to examine claim of all such

employees
for
pension,
who
were

appointed prior to 1960.
Relevant
extract
of
the
said

judgment is reproduced below: -
“43. Therefore, having regard to the above
discussion, we dispose of the Appeals as
follows:
InSpecial Appeal AppealsNos.56 of

2014, 57 of 2014, 58 of 2014, 59 of
2014, 60 of 2014, 105 of 2014, 431 of
2015, 433 of 2015, 437 of 2015, 440 of
2015, 442 of 2015, 460 of 2015, 462 of
2015, 548 of 2015, as being cases of the persons, who claim to be appointed prior
to 1960, we direct that the Corporation will look into their records and ascertain whether they are permanent employees in terms of the 1960 orders and if they are permanent employees in terms of the Government Orders and as explained by us, they will be granted pensionary
benefits on condition, of course, that they will return benefits of Provident Fund, which they already claimed and which was
disbursed to them. They will not be
entitled to interest as they are also
agreeable for amount being returned without interest. They will also not be liable to pay interest and they will also not claim interest. This exercise should be completed by the Corporation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I n Special Appeal No. 57 of 2014, the issue relates to the period a little more than a year. Since he is already being paid pension and only the question is whether he is entitled to count certain period, namely, period between 08.02.1951 to 21.07.1952, we direct that the respondent will consider the same and take a decision within a period of two months and communicate the same to the employee. The other Appeals, which arises from the judgment of Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, will stand dismissed. The other Appeals by Mr. Arvind Vashisth and Mr. Ashish Joshi will stand allowed
and the writ petitions will stand
dismissed. Appeal No. 57 of 2014 will stand disposed of”
Thus, Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner

2014, 57 of 2014, 58 of 2014, 59 of

2014, 60 of 2014, 105 of 2014, 431 of

2015, 433 of 2015, 437 of 2015, 440 of

2015, 442 of 2015, 460 of 2015, 462 of

2015, 548 of 2015, as being cases of the
persons, who claim to be appointed prior

to 1960, we direct that the Corporation
will look into their records and ascertain
whether they are permanent employees in
terms of the 1960 orders and if they are
permanent employees in terms of the
Government Orders and as explained by
us,
they
will
be
granted
pensionary

benefits on condition, of course, that they
will return benefits of Provident Fund,
which they already claimed and which was

disbursed to them. They will not be

entitled to interest as they are also

agreeable for amount being returned
without interest. They will also not be
liable to pay interest and they will also not
claim interest. This exercise should be
completed by the Corporation within a
period of four months from the date of
receipt
of
a
certified
copy
of
this
judgment. I n Special Appeal No. 57 of
2014, the issue relates to the period a
little more than a year. Since he is
already being paid pension and only the
question is whether he is entitled to count
certain period, namely, period between
08.02.1951 to 21.07.1952, we direct that
the respondent will consider the same and
take a decision within a period of two
months and communicate the same to the
employee.
The other Appeals, which arises from
the
judgment
of
Hon’ble
Justice
Sudhanshu Dhulia, will stand dismissed.
The other Appeals by Mr. Arvind Vashisth
and Mr. Ashish Joshi will stand allowed

and
the
writ
petitions
will
stand

dismissed. Appeal No. 57 of 2014 will
stand disposed of”

Thus,
Mr.
Vijay
Bhatt,
learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that since petitioner was also
appointed before 1960, therefore, his
case is also covered by the said
judgment. He further submits that since
petitioner was appointed in the year
1949 and his services were confirmed on
the post of Cleaner in 1956, therefore,
petitioner is also entitled for pension in
terms of aforesaid judgment rendered by
Division Bench of this Court.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2
– U.P.S.R.T.C., however, raised
preliminary objection regarding delay &
laches in filing writ petition.
Per contra, Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned
counsel for petitioner has referred to
penultimate para of letter dated
10.06.2021 issued by Regional Manager,
U.P.S.R.T.C., Bareilly, where it is
observed that since petitioner has not
filed any writ petition, therefore, his
claim for pension cannot be considered.
Thus, he submits that stand taken by the
Corporation is unsustainable in the eyes
of law, inasmuch as, if petitioner is
entitled to pension, as per the applicable
Scheme, than his claim ought to have

submits that since petitioner was also

appointed before 1960, therefore, his

case
is
also
covered
by
the
said

judgment. He further submits that since

petitioner was appointed in the year

1949 and his services were confirmed on

the post of Cleaner in 1956, therefore,

petitioner is also entitled for pension in

terms of aforesaid judgment rendered by

Division Bench of this Court.

Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2

–
U.P.S.R.T.C.,
however,
raised

preliminary objection regarding delay &

laches in filing writ petition.

Per contra, Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned

counsel for petitioner has referred to

penultimate
para
of
letter
dated

10.06.2021 issued by Regional Manager,

U.P.S.R.T.C.,
Bareilly,
where
it
is

observed that since petitioner has not

filed any writ petition, therefore, his

claim for pension cannot be considered.

Thus, he submits that stand taken by the

Corporation is unsustainable in the eyes

of law, inasmuch as, if petitioner is

entitled to pension, as per the applicable

Scheme, than his claim ought to have

been considered, even without filing	of
writ petition. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, furt	her
submits that non-payment of pensio	n to
an employee, who is otherwise elig	ible
for pension gives a recurring cause	of
action, therefore, the question of dela	y &
laches would not be attracted in	the
present case. This Court finds substance in	the
submission made by learned counsel	for
the petitioner. Non-payment of pen	sion
to a person, who is otherwise elig	ible
therefor, gives a recurring cause	of
action to the concerned pers	on.
Moreover, it is the Corporation which	has
refused to consider petitioner’s claim	for
pension on the ground that he has	no
judicial order in his favour. Th	us,
petitioner cannot be solely blamed	for
the delay and laches. In such view of the mat	ter,
objection raised by learned cou	nsel
appearing for respondent no. 2	is
rejected. In such view of the matter, si	nce,
the facts of the case are identical to	the
one decided by Division Bench of	this
Court in SPA No. 40 of 2014 & ot	her

been considered, even without filing

writ petition. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, furt

her

submits that non-payment of pensio

n to

an employee, who is otherwise elig

ible

for pension gives a recurring cause

action, therefore, the question of dela

y &

laches would not be attracted in

the

present case.
This Court finds substance in

the

submission made by learned counsel

for

the petitioner. Non-payment of pen

sion

to a person, who is otherwise elig

ible

therefor, gives a recurring cause

action
to
the
concerned
pers

on.

Moreover, it is the Corporation which

has

refused to consider petitioner’s claim

for

pension on the ground that he has

judicial
order
in
his
favour.
Th

us,

petitioner cannot be solely blamed

for

the delay and laches.
In
such
view
of
the
mat

ter,

objection
raised
by
learned
cou

nsel

appearing
for
respondent
no.
2

rejected.
In such view of the matter, si

nce,

the facts of the case are identical to

the

one decided by Division Bench of

this

Court in SPA No. 40 of 2014 & ot

her

connected cases,	therefore, present writ
petition is also	decided in terms of
aforesaid judgm	ent dated 10.01.2017
rendered in SPA	No. 40 of 2014 & other
connected cases. Let nece	ssary exercise be
undertaken by U	P State Road Transport
Corporation, with	in eight weeks, strictly
in terms of the	ratio of the aforesaid
judgment and	appropriate order be
passed, within tw	o weeks thereafter.
( M Aswal	an oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 04.07.2022

connected cases,

therefore, present writ

petition is also

decided in terms of

aforesaid judgm

ent dated 10.01.2017

rendered in SPA

No. 40 of 2014 & other

connected cases.
Let
nece

ssary
exercise
be

undertaken by U

P State Road Transport

Corporation, with

in eight weeks, strictly

in terms of the

ratio of the aforesaid

judgment
and

appropriate
order
be

passed, within tw

o weeks thereafter.

( M

Aswal

an oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
04.07.2022

Luxmi Prasad v. State of U P through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Luxmi Prasad v. State of U P through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mukesh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary

Satish Chandra Kotnala Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ramesh Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Lalit Dewari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madhu Menka Vs Rupa Saini