Who Is Entitled To Pension? The Supreme Court Has Given An Important Decision In A Case Related To UP

The Supreme Court has made a major comment regarding the right to pension. Dismissing the plea of ​​former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, the court said that pension is a right but pension can be claimed only when the employee is entitled to its benefits.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, while upholding the Supreme Court’s decision, said that if an employee comes under the PF scheme but is not in a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension.

3 big things about the SC decision

1. The court said that pension is a right, not a gift. This is a constitutional right to which an employee is entitled after retirement. Pension can be claimed only if it is sanctioned under the relevant rules or any scheme.
2. The SC has held that if an employee is covered under a provident fund scheme and does not hold pensionable status, he cannot claim pension, nor can a court pay pension to an employee who is not eligible for pension as per the rules. does not come under
3. The Court observed the orders of the Government in such cases and found that the petitioner-employee did not hold any permanent post or pensionable post. Further, the Court accepted that the appellant had availed retirement benefits including PF scheme. So they cannot claim pension.

Pension Eligibility in Government Order

According to the court, Uttar Pradesh Roadways was constituted as a temporary department in 1947 and its employees were appointed on temporary basis. A government order dated 16 September 1960 imposed conditions of service for these employees, but these conditions were different from those of employees working in other government departments.

Also read this

On 28 October 1960, a Government Order was issued under Note 3 to Article 350. In this government order, provision was made for giving pension to the permanent employees of Roadways. As per Article 350, employees posted on non-gazetted posts in government technical and industrial institutes in Uttar Pradesh are not eligible for pension and will be covered under the PF scheme.

What was the basis of SC’s decision?

1. After going through all the documents, the Court has accepted that the pension eligibility of the roadways employees was determined under the Government Order dated 28th October, 1960. These employees were neither made permanent under any order by the Roadways Management nor the petitioners claimed to be working under the 3 categories (which were considered pensionable) mentioned in para 1 of the 1960 order.
2. The Court held that since the roadways are considered technical and industrial establishments, the appellants fall under Note 3 to Section 350 and are not entitled to pension.
3. Petitioners, Mirza Athar Baig, Sm. Decisions of the Allahabad High Court were cited in many other cases including Fazil. The Apex Court held that in the cases cited by the appellant, the respective appellants were holding permanent posts which were pensionable. Whereas in the present case the petitioner was neither holding a permanent post nor entitled to any pension as per Government order dated 28th October, 1960.