The Supreme Court has established that pension is a constitutional right rather than a discretionary benefit. Employees are entitled to pension upon their superannuation only if it is allowed under the relevant rules or schemes.
Eligibility for Pension
The Court clarified that if an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and does not hold a pensionable post, they cannot claim pension. Additionally, a writ court cannot issue a mandamus to compel an employer to provide pension to an employee not covered by the applicable rules.
Case Background
These observations were made while addressing petitions filed by the UP Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association. These petitions arose from a common judgment by the Allahabad High Court related to different writ petitions.
Issue at Hand
The core issue was whether former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, a temporary department of the State Government, held pensionable posts either before or after their absorption into the UP State Roadways Transport Corporation (UPSRTC).
Historical Context and Government Orders
The Roadways department was established as a temporary entity in 1947. A Government Order (GO) dated September 16, 1960, outlined the service conditions for Roadways employees. Another GO, dated October 28, 1960, provided for pensions to permanent Roadways employees under Note 3 of Article 350 of the Regulations.
Court’s Analysis
A review of Article 350 revealed that service in non-gazetted posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions in Uttar Pradesh does not qualify for pension and is covered by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The Court supported the High Court’s observation that the appellants, who received retirement benefits including those under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, cannot claim additional pension benefits.
Promotions and Pension Entitlements
In another set of petitions, the issue was whether employees promoted to pensionable posts after 1982 were entitled to pension. The High Court had ruled that such employees were entitled to pension, contrary to UPSRTC’s contention that the High Court misinterpreted the GOs. UPSRTC argued that pension entitlement was restricted to government employees absorbed into the Corporation.
Supreme Court’s Conclusion
The Supreme Court observed that employees absorbed into the Corporation from the State Government should be entitled to pension if their service conditions were not inferior to those previously available. However, employees who did not hold pensionable posts prior to their absorption were not entitled to pension. The Court held that the High Court’s division bench erred in ruling that members of the RKSP were entitled to pension even if promoted after the cut-off date of August 27, 1982.
Judgment
Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, allowed UPSRTC’s appeal, and dismissed the Roadways Karamchari Sanyukta Parishad’s plea.
