Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner's claim is that he was initially appointed in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways on 18.04.1957, his services were subsequently absorbed in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and he retired on 31.07.1993 while he was posed as Junior Station Incharge, in U.P.S.R.T.C., Ghaziabad , U.P.
The petitioner claims that he was granted pension in the year 1993 and he continued to receive full pension in accordance with the provisions of Pension Rules of the Corporation till 30.10.2007, where after by an order dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) the petitioner's pension payment order was cancelled by the opposite parties arbitrarily and illegally without assigning any reason and without affording him any opportunity of hearing. The instant writ petition was initially filed by the petitioner for quashing the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2007.
The opposite parties filed their counter affidavit disputing the petitioner's claim for grant of pension on the ground that prior to the date of amalgamation / enforcement of U.P. State Roadway Organisation (Abolition of Posts and Absorption of Employees Rules (1982) the petitioner had not worked on the post of Junior Station Incharge and the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on which he was working was a non-pensionable post and as such the petitioner was not entitled to pension.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it was further stated that the order dated 15.10.2007 was only a consequential order and in fact prior to the passing of the impugned order the corporation had passed the orders on 18th October 2006, and 13th July, 2007 to stop payment of pension of those retired Traffic Inspectors of the Corporation who had not worked on the post of Station Incharge prior to the date of issuance of U.P. State 2 Roadway Organisation (Abolition of Posts and Absorption of Employees Rules (1982), pursuant to which the impugned order was passed and in the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid orders the writ petition is not maintainable against the order dated 15.10.2007 alone. Copies of the orders dated 18.10.2007 and 13.07.2007 passed by the the Corporation were filed as Annexures No. C.A. 1 and 2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1. Thereafter the petitioner amended the writ petition and added the relief for quashing the departmental orders dated 18.10.2006 and 13.07.2007 also in the writ petition.
The impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioner's counsel at the first instance on the ground that although the impugned orders carry civil consequences, the same were passed by the opposite parties without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of hearing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar objection as the one raised by the Corporation in the instant writ- petition was raised by the corporation justifying its decision to deny pension to similarly placed Traffic Inspectors as the petitioner was considered and rejected by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44772 of 2006, Ram Singh Singraur and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2007 (3) LBESR 47 (All) and since the claim of the petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit which has been granted to the petitioners of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 44772 of 2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that this Court in the case of Ram Singh Singraur and others (supra) by relying upon the notification dated 05.05.1978 held that the post Traffic Inspectors Grade-1 stood integrated with the post of Junior Station Incharge with a common appointing authority and both the posts were made inter-changeable and hence the Traffic Inspectors were entitled to pension.
Learned counsel appearing for the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation strenuously urged that the ratio of the case Ram Singh Singraur and others is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the petitioner was not working on the post of Junior Station Incharge on the date of amalgamation.
After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this court is of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are correct and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the corporation have no force. The reasons given in the orders dated 18.10.2006 and 13.07.2007 for cancelling the petitioner's pension payment order are totally unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court in the case Ram Singh Singraur and others (supra).
This Court while considering the same issue in the case of Ram Singh Singraur (supra), observed in paragraph nos. 4 to 11 of its judgement given in the aforesaid case as hereunder:
" 4. The U.P. Government Roadways was a Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and was engaged in providing transport facilities. By a Government Order dated 28.10.1960, all posts of the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side were declared to be pensionable. The Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (here-in-after referred to as the Corporation) came into being with effect from 1.6.1972 in pursuance of section 45 of the State Transport Act passed by the Parliament. On the creation of the Corporation, all the employees, including the petitioner, serving in U.P. Government Roadways were sent to the Corporation on deputation with a stipulation that service conditions of the employees of the U.P. government Roadways would not be inferior in the Corporation.
The Board of Directors of the Corporation passed a resolution on 3.3.1978 upgrading the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 and placed it in the pay scale of Junior Station Incharge. Both the posts were made interchangeable vide notification dated 5.5.1978 and the Deputy General Manager was notified to be the common appointing authority for both. It is not denied that the petitioner remained an employee of U.P. Government Roadways till he was absorbed in the Corporation with effect from 28.7.1982. Regulation 39 of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Employees other than Officers) Service Regulation, 1981 stipulates that only those employees of the erstwhile Government Roadways who held a 4 pensionable posts prior to their absorption in the Corporation would be entitled to pension and none of the officers of the Corporation would be entitled to that benefit.
5. The core issue thus is, whether the petitioner was holding a pensionable post prior to his absorption in the Corporation?
6. A perusal of the notification dated 5.5.1978 shows that all the posts of Assistant Traffic Inspectors were upgraded to Traffic Inspection Grade-1 and were made interchangeable with the posts of Junior Station Incharge. On the said date the petitioner like all other Traffic Inspectors were thus upgraded to Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 and they were liable to be posted as Junior Station Incharge also. The effect was that the posts of Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 and Junior Station Incharge was integrated into a common cadre having one appointing authority i.e. the Deputy General Manager. However, Sri Sharma contends that the integration of the two posts were only for the sake of convenience and to streamline the work of the Corporation and it did not grant any benefit applicable to the post of Junior Station Incharge. The argument does not appear to be correct and is belied by the aforesaid notification itself. There is nothing in the notification to suggest even remotely that notwithstanding the integration, Traffic Inspectors would be deprived of any benefits arising thereof. No doubt the notification states that the arrangement could be withdrawn at any time but, there is nothing on record nor it has been argued at the bar that the said notification was ever withdrawn prior to the absorption of the petitioner in the Corporation. To the contrary, the petitioner was given the grade of the Junior Station Incharge vide order dated 24.5.1978. Further, vide resolution dated 30.8.1979 the Corporation decided to transfer all those Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 who had completed the age of 52 years to the post of Junior Station Incharge and those Station Incharges who had not completed the age of 52 years, were transferred to the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-1. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the petitioner was entitled to all the benefits applicable to Junior Station Incharge. Even after the absorption of the petitioner with 5 effect from 28.7.1982 the Corporation kept on taking action in consonance with the notification dated 5.5.1978. The Corporation by its resolution dated 23.3.1985 held that the posts of Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 were redesignated as Traffic Inspector and simultaneously it resolved to abolish 193 posts of Traffic Inspector creating 150 posts of Junior Station Incharges. It further resolved that all the newly created 150 posts of Junior Station Incharges would be filled up from the Traffic Inspectors. In fact, all those Assistant Traffic Inspectors who were promoted to the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 in 1978 merged into the grade of Junior Station Incharges and all Junior Station Incharges appointed after 5.5.1978 were treated to be junior to them. Thus, the likes of the petitioner were even given seniority in the cadre of Station Incharge from 5.5.1978 itself.
7. It is then urged on behalf of the Corporation that the notification dated 5.5.1978 cannot be said to have amended the Government Order dated 28.10.1960 and the petitioner remained a government servant till his absorption and thus Corporation could not have changed the service conditions of such employees. He has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Jagdish Prasad Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others [1980 (VI) A.L.R. 81.]
8. A perusal of the decision in Jagidish Prasad's case would show that the issue in consideration before the Division Bench was as to whether a claim petition lay before the Public Service Tribunal under U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 with regard to challenge of termination of Government Roadways Employees on deputation to the Corporation. The Division Bench held that prior to absorption of such Government Roadways Employees in the Corporation, he remained a government servant and as such the claim petition under the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 would be maintainable before the Tribunal. This case does not help the cause of the Corporation. After the petitioner was placed in deputation in the Corporation, the Corporation became entitled to regulate, control and 6 supervise the work of the deputees. The Corporation has failed to point out any law disabling the Corporation from changing the service conditions of the deputationist. The only bar imposed was that in no case the conditions of service of the deputationist would in any way be inferior to those which were applicable under the U.P. Government Roadways. The Government Order dated 28.10.1960 categorically states that the supervisory staff of the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side would be admitted to pension. The Corporation by its notification dated 5.5.1978 upgraded the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 and integrated the said post in the post of Junior Station Incharge and thus the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 became equivalent in rank to the post of Junior Station Incharge. Once the two posts were integrated into a common cadre with the same pay scale and common appointing authority, it cannot be said that the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 was in any way inferior in rank to that of Junior Station Incharge. If the argument of the Corporation were to be accepted, it would lead to absurd results because if a member of the cadre was absorbed in the Corporation while working as a Junior Station Incharge he would be admitted to pension but if he is absorbed from the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-II he would be denied the said benefit.
9. It is then urged that in fact the petitioner never worked on the post of Junior Station Incharge, therefore, they were not entitled to pension.
10. The worth of the argument has already been commented upon, but let us examine it a bit further.
11. It is common ground that the provision for pension to the employees of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways is covered by the Government Order dated 28.10.1960. The relevant category (b) states that " the supervisory staff to the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side" would be entitled for pension. It does not speak about 'post' of 7 Junior Incharge but 'rank' of Junior Station Incharge. Argument of the Corporation implies that until and unless a person holds the post of Junior Station Incharge, he would not be entitled to pension. The argument does not appear to be correct. The words 'post' and 'rank' have a very different meaning in service jurisprudence. The Apex Court in the Case of N.C. Dalwadi Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1987 S.C. 1933) while considering a case of compulsory retirement of a Superintendent Engineer had an occasion to decipher the meaning of the word 'rank' and gave it its ordinary meaning as "grade or status". Further, the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1995 S.C. 1371) while considering the question of relevant 'post', found that the "word post means the appointment, job, office or employment........" Therefore, also it would be irrelevant whether or not the petitioner actually worked as Junior Station Incharge. Once the Corporation has upgraded the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 to the rank of Junior Station Incharge, they would be entitled to the benefit of the said Government Order dated 28.10.1960. The Court has already noted above that the two posts had been integrated into a common cadre and made interchangeable which was followed subsequently. "
After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this court is of the view that the the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Singh Singraur (supra) applies with full force to the facts of the present case and the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit which has been granted to the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44772 of 2006 Ram Singh Singraur's (supra) case.
The reasons given in the impugned orders for stoppage of petitioner's pension are totally untenable.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 15.10.2007, 18.10.2006 and 13.07.2007 passed by the Managing Director and the Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation are hereby quashed.
The petitioner shall be entitled to entire arrears of pension which shall be paid to the petitioner by the respondents together with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of 6 months from today. The respondents shall also pay to the petitioner his current pension regularly. Dt.22.01.2010 Y.K.