The Supreme Court recently dealt with civil appeals from former Uttar Pradesh Roadways employees seeking pension benefits. The court ruled that employees can claim a pension only if they are eligible under specific rules or schemes. If an employee is part of the Provident Fund Scheme and does not hold a pensionable position, they cannot claim a pension.
“Pension is a right, not a gift. It is a constitutional right for employees upon retirement. However, a pension can only be claimed if allowed by relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is under the Provident Fund Scheme and does not have a pensionable post, they cannot claim a pension, nor can the court order the employer to provide a pension to such an employee,” stated Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Upon reviewing government orders, the court found that the appellant-employees did not hold permanent or pensionable posts. They had already received their retirement benefits, including those under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. Therefore, they could not claim additional pension benefits.
Past Instances
In 1947, UP Roadways was established as a temporary department to provide public transport. Employees were appointed temporarily. On September 16, 1960, a Government Order (GO) set different service conditions for Roadways employees compared to other government departments. Another GO on October 28, 1960, provided pensions to permanent Roadways employees under Note 3 of Article 350 of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations, which excluded non-gazetted posts from pension eligibility, covering them under the Provident Fund Scheme.
The UP State Roadways Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) was formed on June 1, 1972. A subsequent GO on July 5, 1972, assured that Roadways employees transferred to UPSRTC would not face worse service conditions. On April 28, 1982, new rules absorbed all Roadways employees into UPSRTC effective from July 28, 1982.
After retirement, the appellant-employees accepted their retirement benefits without protest. However, relying on later judgments from the Allahabad High Court, they sought pension benefits. Their claims were rejected by the High Court, and they then approached the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The court concluded that pension eligibility was governed by the GO dated October 28, 1960. The appellants did not demonstrate that they held permanent posts or fell into the specified categories of employees entitled to pensions. The GO also stated that temporary and non-gazetted permanent employees were not pensionable.
Further, the court noted that the appellants were not covered under Article 350, as despite amendments, Note 3 remained unchanged. The court also found that the Allahabad High Court decisions cited by the appellants did not apply, as those cases involved employees holding permanent, pensionable posts, unlike the appellants.
For appeals concerning employees promoted to pensionable posts after 1982, the court ruled that employees not holding pensionable posts before joining UPSRTC were not entitled to pensions. Their service conditions did not include pension rights, so they were not disadvantaged by their transfer to the Corporation.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed most appeals from former Roadways employees but allowed the appeals from UPSRTC, overturning the High Court’s decision to grant pension benefits to employees promoted after 1982.
