The case concerns an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a High Court judgment that granted pensionary benefits to respondents, who were temporary employees under the “AntarGraminSadakNirman Yojana” (Scheme). The core issue revolves around whether these temporary employees, despite their initial contributory provident fund scheme, are entitled to pension benefits comparable to regular government employees, especially given prior court rulings on similar cases, such as that of Vinod Kumar Goel. The Supreme Court ultimately dismisses the appeal, affirming the respondents’ entitlement to pension, though with a restriction on arrears to three years prior to their writ petition filing, and allowing for the deduction of previously received provident fund amounts.
(A) Constitution of India, Article 14 and 226 – Service Law – Contributory Pension Scheme – Pension – Claim for – Parity – Respondents, although appointed under the Scheme, were governed by the fundamental statutory rules as per the order dated 12.11.1997 of the Competent Authority which aspect is further fortified in light of the decision dated 29.11.1997, which extends the benefit of retiral benefits etc. to the scheme employees, restricting it only to the management of finances under the Scheme itself – This Court vide its earlier judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar Goel has dealt with this aspect and has categorically held that the employees appointed under the scheme would be governed by the Rules as applicable to the government employees as per the conscious decision of the government – The employees were also entitled to continue till 60 years of age, further entitling them to consequential benefits, which is apparent from the subsequent order dated 10.07.2014 passed by this Court in the second round when Vinod Kumar Goel was not granted the benefit of pension by the Government – Distinction is being sought to be pleaded by the appellant with reference to the non- applicability of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Goel (supra) is that he was an employee of the State of Uttarakhand with State of Uttar Pradesh not being a party thereto the said judgment would not be binding upon the State – Held that under the Scheme till the year 2000 when the State of Uttarakhand was carved out of the State of Uttar Pradesh, he continued to be governed by the rules and regulations framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh – There has been no changes brought about by the State of Uttarakhand in the said rules/regulations, other than as has been taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh – The decision, therefore, of this Court in Vinod Kumar Goel’s case along with the principles laid down therein would be applicable to the present case – Appeal liable to be dismissed except for holding the respondents entitled to arrears of pension for a period of three years prior to the date of the filing of their Writ Petition or the date of attaining the age 60 years whichever is earlier for the relief as granted by the High Court – As regards the benefits which have been disbursed to the respondents under the Contributory Pension Scheme, the appellants would be entitled to deduct the said amount from the arrears of pension payable to the respondents – This exercise shall be carried out within a period of one month.
(Para 14 to 16 and 20)
(B) Constitution of India, Article 14 and 226 – Service Law – Pension – Claim for – Principle of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver – Contention that the amount had been withdrawn of the Contributory Provident Fund and pressed into service principle of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver – Held that it is apparent that the respondents had at the very outset put forth their claim for pension which was declined by the appellants and that too either prior to retirement or prior to withdrawal of the fund under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – They were always and are still ready and willing to deposit the amount withdrawn as is required to be so contributed, therefore, the principles as sought to be pushed into service is without any basis.
(Para 16)
(C) Constitution of India, Article 14 and 226 – Service Law – Continuing wrong – Pensionary benefit – Delay and laches – Held that pension is not a charity, or a bounty, and an employee is entitled to receive his pension – As a matter of principle, belated service-related claims need to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches – However, where the claim relates to a continuing wrong, which does not affect the rights of third parties, equities can be balanced by restricting the arrears for the entitlement which a claimant is held to be eligible for – Normally, the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petition in the High Court for restricting the consequential relief has been resorted to regarding disbursal of arrears, which is justified.
(Para 19)
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. V. Dinesh Kumar Sharma And Ors.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 370: (DoJ 20-03-2025)
