Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 370
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1080 of 2017
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Augustine George Masih, J.
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
18.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby the respondents
were held entitled to pensionary benefits under the
"Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana" (hereinafter
referred to as "the Scheme").
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.03.20
15:39:40 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 1 of 14
2. Respondents in this case were appointed under the
Scheme to different posts between the years 1969 to
1982.
3. The Uttar Pradesh Cane (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979 ,
were applicable to the gazetted officers of the Cane
Development Department, which in turn govern the
service conditions of the respondents herein and no
separate rules have been framed for them. They
approached the High Court seeking regular pension on
the same rates as were permissible to the permanent
employees of the government.
4. The respondents were appointed under the aforesaid
Scheme on a temporary basis and were governed by the
Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme. A demand
was raised by the employees for payment of gratuity
and pension, etc., wherein a decision was taken on
29.09.1997 that the government had no objection to
extending the benefit of pension, gratuity, leave
travelling concession and Group Insurance Scheme to
the employees appointed under the scheme, provided
all financial expenses relating to these facilities would
be borne by the internal sources of the Scheme. The
government would not provide any type of financial
assistance or grant-in-aid. A policy decision was also
taken by the appointing authority on 12.11.1997 that
all the employees and officers under the Scheme would
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 2 of 14
be covered by the service rules, government orders,
regulations and bye-laws as applicable from time to
time to the equivalent posts of the Cane Development
Department. The government further communicated,
with reference to the earlier communication dated
29.09.1997, that the facility of gratuity should be
extended as per the rules and the facility of
Contributory Provident Fund should be continued,
reiterating the aspect of managing the expenses from
the income of the Scheme. Thereafter, the Sugar Cane
Commissioner passed an order clarifying the facilities
available to the employees under the Scheme were like
the government employees except for the facility of
regularization, permanency and pension benefits. A
restriction was also imposed upon the age of
superannuation to remain at 58 years vide decision
dated 29.06.2005. However, the Sugar Cane
Commissioner raised the age of superannuation from
58 to 60 years for employees working under the
Scheme.
5. One Mr. Vinod Kumar Goel preferred a Writ Petition
before the Uttarakhand High Court claiming
enhancement of his age of superannuation to 60 years
in light of the decision of the government as referred to
above. This claim was rejected, leading to filing an SLP
before this Court, wherein vide order dated 16.04.2004
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 3 of 14
in Civil Appeal No.2511 of 2004 titled as Vinod Kumar
Goel vs. State of Uttaranchal , it was held that he would
be entitled to continue till the age of 60 years in light of
the order of the Cane Commissioner dated 04.11.1997,
which entitled the employees appointed under the
Scheme to the same benefits as the government
employees in the absence of any separate rules.
He, in the light of above claimed pension which was
declined on the ground that he would not be entitled to
the said benefit as he did not fulfil the required
qualifying service for entitlement for payment of
pension under the rules applicable. The employee was
also held not entitled to gratuity. Shri Vinod Kumar
Goel, challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition
No. 348 of 2005 ( Vinod Kumar Goel Vs. State of
Uttaranchal ), in the High Court, vide judgment dated
09.11.2011, the claim was partly allowed, entitling him
to payment of gratuity in terms of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972. However, he was not held entitled
to pension under the rules because of his having less
service than the required qualifying service on the date
of his completing the age of 60 years.
6. Shri Vinod Kumar Goel approached this Court where
his claim was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2014 in
Civil Appeal No.327 of 2014 titled as Vinod Kumar Goel
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 4 of 14
vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. , entitling him to grant
of monthly pension apart from other retiral benefits.
7. Some of the respondents herein approached this Court
by filing a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India challenging the denial of pension
to the employees under the Scheme vide letter dated
13.11.2002 issued by the Cane Commissioner. This
Writ Petition was withdrawn on 27.08.2012 with liberty
to approach the High Court to raise all the points. It is
in pursuance thereto that Writ Petition was preferred
before the High Court, wherein, on the basis of the
above-referred judgment in the Case of Vinod Kumar
Goel of this Court relief was claimed for retiral benefits.
The High Court accepted their claims holding them
entitled to get the benefit of post-retiral dues including
pension from the date of their retirement, treating their
service to have been extended to the age of 60 years. It
is this order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the High
Court which is under challenge before this Court.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has assailed
the judgment primarily on the ground that the
respondents have approached the Court after gross
delay and that too after the judgment was passed by
this Court, claiming parity with the said judgment. A
distinction is also sought to be pleaded on the basis
that in Vinod Kumar Goel case, the said employee had
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 5 of 14
been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, which was
carved out of the State of Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) in
the year 2000 whereas the respondents continued with
State of Uttar Pradesh. Counsel has also pressed into
service the principle of estoppel, acquiescence and
waiver, as according to the appellant they have already
taken the benefit and advantage of the Contributory
Provident Fund, having withdrawn the dues after their
retirement, and, therefore, they cannot now be
permitted to claim pension.
9. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
respondents were temporary employees working under
the Scheme and therefore would not be entitled to the
benefit of pensionary benefits unless specifically held
entitled to by the competent authority. What has been
asserted is that the distinction has to be drawn between
the temporary and the regular employees. Therefore,
they cannot be held entitled to the same benefits as
regular government employees since the respondents
were working under the Scheme. He, on this basis, has
prayed for setting aside the order impugned and
dismissal of the Writ Petition preferred by the
respondents.
10. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents has supported the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble High Court, asserting that the case of the
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 6 of 14
respondents has rightly been held to be covered by the
ratio of the judgment in Vinod Kumar Goel’s case.
11. He thus contends that once the rules applicable to the
Cane Development Department have been made
applicable to the employees under the Scheme, they
would be entitled to the same benefits provided they
fulfil the requirements laid down thereunder.
12. Referring to the documents appended along with the
Special Leave Petition, he has asserted that a conscious
positive decision had been taken by the government to
grant the benefits based on a
proposal/recommendation of the Cane Commissioner
vide letter dated 29.09.1997, qualifying it as limited to
the extent of financial expenses being borne by internal
sources. Emphasis has also been placed upon the
decision dated 12.11.1997 whereby the employees
under the scheme were to be covered by the service
rules, government orders, regulations and bye-laws as
applicable to the Cane Development Department. Once
the said rules had been made applicable and a
conscious decision had been taken by the government
vide communication/decision dated 29.09.1997 with
regard to the grant of all the benefits, the subsequent
decision dated 13.11.2002 of the Sugarcane
Commissioner would not sustain.
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 7 of 14
13. Senior Counsel has, with reference to the delay in
approaching the Court, asserted that the date of
retirement of the respondents may not be relevant as
pension is a recurring benefit to which an employee is
entitled every month. The claim would not extinguish
merely because of the lapse of time. Referring to the
chart appended along with the appeal here, the counsel
asserts that there has been no inordinate delay on their
part. Referring to the impugned judgment, he has
pointed out that the High Court has itself mentioned
that some of the petitioners had earlier approached the
Court challenging the notice for their retirement at the
age of 58 years by filing Writ Petitions wherein, in the
light of interim orders, they were allowed to continue in
service till they attained the age of 60 years. It has also
been pointed out that the State Government vide
notification dated 28.11.2001 amended Rule 56 of the
Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, enhancing the age
of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. With these
rules having been made applicable by the appellants
and as held by this Court in Vinod Kumar Goel’s case
(supra), respondents would be entitled to the said
benefit, which has been rightly granted to them. In light
of the above, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
14. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel for the parties, we find
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 8 of 14
ourselves in agreement with the principles which form
the basis of the judgment of the High Court. The facts,
as narrated above, make things amply clear. The
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.
15. This Court vide its earlier judgment in the case of Vinod
Kumar Goel (supra) 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.
16. Dealing with the distinction which is being sought to be
pleaded by the appellant with reference to the non-
applicability of the judgment passed by this Court in
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 9 of 14
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. This
plea of the appellant, at the first blush, may appear to
be attractive, but the fact is that at the time of
appointment, 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. Principle of
estoppel, acquiescence and waiver as sought to be
pressed into service by the appellants for the reason
that the amount had been withdrawn of the
Contributory Provident Fund by the respondents,
again, would not be of any benefit to the appellant as
the respondents had no option but to resort to the
same. 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
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 10 of 14
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.
17. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant that switch over from one scheme to the other
scheme is not permissible under the rules for which
reference has been made and reliance placed on the
judgment in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Nigam Limited
1
vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal and Others , would be
of no avail on facts. When seen, this was a case where
an option was given to the employee to switch over from
the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the
Pension Scheme, which option had not been exercised
by him thus the said employee was held not entitled to
the benefit of the Pension Scheme. Similarly, reliance
placed on the judgment in Union of India and Others
2
vs. M. K. Sarkar , would also be of any benefit as it
was held that when given a chance to change of option
by the employee, if not exercised, would disentitle the
employee for the claim.
These judgments are thus distinguishable both on facts
and the issues involved herein. In the present case,
1
2015 (12) SCC 51
2
2010, (2) SCC 59
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 11 of 14
there was no option given for switchover to the
respondents rather it was asserted that they were not
entitled to pension which, as held above, has been
found to be unsustainable. Further, there has been
claims for pension etc. put forth by them within
reasonable time.
18. As regards the objection of the appellants with regard
to the delay on the part of the respondents in
approaching the Court based on reliance placed on the
judgments in U.P. Jal Nigam and Another vs.
3
Jaswant Singh and Another and Sarva Shramik
Sangh vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and
4
Others is concerned those would not be of much help
since in those cases, the claims were put forth after an
inordinate unexplained delay, whereas in the present
case, the respondents had either retired subsequent to
date of decision while others had approached the High
Court and obtained interim benefit of continuing in
service till the age of 60 years.
19. This Court in various judgments has clearly held and
settled 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
3
(2006) 11 SCC 464
4
(2009) 11 SCC 609
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 12 of 14
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. In the
present case also, therefore, the benefit of arrears of
pension can be restricted to three years prior to the date
of filing of the Writ Petition.
20. In light of the above, the appeal stands 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. In case there is still some amount due to be paid
by the respondents, the said amount shall be conveyed
to the respondents within a period of two weeks after
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 13 of 14
the expiry of the initial one month as granted, which
shall thereafter be deposited by the respondents within
a period of two weeks. On doing so, the arrears and/or
pension as per entitlement would be paid within thirty
days.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………..……….……………………..J.
[ ABHAY S. OKA ]
……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 20, 2025
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 14 of 14
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1080 of 2017
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Augustine George Masih, J.
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
18.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby the respondents
were held entitled to pensionary benefits under the
"Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana" (hereinafter
referred to as "the Scheme").
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.03.20
15:39:40 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 1 of 14
2. Respondents in this case were appointed under the
Scheme to different posts between the years 1969 to
1982.
3. The Uttar Pradesh Cane (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979 ,
were applicable to the gazetted officers of the Cane
Development Department, which in turn govern the
service conditions of the respondents herein and no
separate rules have been framed for them. They
approached the High Court seeking regular pension on
the same rates as were permissible to the permanent
employees of the government.
4. The respondents were appointed under the aforesaid
Scheme on a temporary basis and were governed by the
Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme. A demand
was raised by the employees for payment of gratuity
and pension, etc., wherein a decision was taken on
29.09.1997 that the government had no objection to
extending the benefit of pension, gratuity, leave
travelling concession and Group Insurance Scheme to
the employees appointed under the scheme, provided
all financial expenses relating to these facilities would
be borne by the internal sources of the Scheme. The
government would not provide any type of financial
assistance or grant-in-aid. A policy decision was also
taken by the appointing authority on 12.11.1997 that
all the employees and officers under the Scheme would
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 2 of 14
be covered by the service rules, government orders,
regulations and bye-laws as applicable from time to
time to the equivalent posts of the Cane Development
Department. The government further communicated,
with reference to the earlier communication dated
29.09.1997, that the facility of gratuity should be
extended as per the rules and the facility of
Contributory Provident Fund should be continued,
reiterating the aspect of managing the expenses from
the income of the Scheme. Thereafter, the Sugar Cane
Commissioner passed an order clarifying the facilities
available to the employees under the Scheme were like
the government employees except for the facility of
regularization, permanency and pension benefits. A
restriction was also imposed upon the age of
superannuation to remain at 58 years vide decision
dated 29.06.2005. However, the Sugar Cane
Commissioner raised the age of superannuation from
58 to 60 years for employees working under the
Scheme.
5. One Mr. Vinod Kumar Goel preferred a Writ Petition
before the Uttarakhand High Court claiming
enhancement of his age of superannuation to 60 years
in light of the decision of the government as referred to
above. This claim was rejected, leading to filing an SLP
before this Court, wherein vide order dated 16.04.2004
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 3 of 14
in Civil Appeal No.2511 of 2004 titled as Vinod Kumar
Goel vs. State of Uttaranchal , it was held that he would
be entitled to continue till the age of 60 years in light of
the order of the Cane Commissioner dated 04.11.1997,
which entitled the employees appointed under the
Scheme to the same benefits as the government
employees in the absence of any separate rules.
He, in the light of above claimed pension which was
declined on the ground that he would not be entitled to
the said benefit as he did not fulfil the required
qualifying service for entitlement for payment of
pension under the rules applicable. The employee was
also held not entitled to gratuity. Shri Vinod Kumar
Goel, challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition
No. 348 of 2005 ( Vinod Kumar Goel Vs. State of
Uttaranchal ), in the High Court, vide judgment dated
09.11.2011, the claim was partly allowed, entitling him
to payment of gratuity in terms of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972. However, he was not held entitled
to pension under the rules because of his having less
service than the required qualifying service on the date
of his completing the age of 60 years.
6. Shri Vinod Kumar Goel approached this Court where
his claim was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2014 in
Civil Appeal No.327 of 2014 titled as Vinod Kumar Goel
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 4 of 14
vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. , entitling him to grant
of monthly pension apart from other retiral benefits.
7. Some of the respondents herein approached this Court
by filing a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India challenging the denial of pension
to the employees under the Scheme vide letter dated
13.11.2002 issued by the Cane Commissioner. This
Writ Petition was withdrawn on 27.08.2012 with liberty
to approach the High Court to raise all the points. It is
in pursuance thereto that Writ Petition was preferred
before the High Court, wherein, on the basis of the
above-referred judgment in the Case of Vinod Kumar
Goel of this Court relief was claimed for retiral benefits.
The High Court accepted their claims holding them
entitled to get the benefit of post-retiral dues including
pension from the date of their retirement, treating their
service to have been extended to the age of 60 years. It
is this order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the High
Court which is under challenge before this Court.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has assailed
the judgment primarily on the ground that the
respondents have approached the Court after gross
delay and that too after the judgment was passed by
this Court, claiming parity with the said judgment. A
distinction is also sought to be pleaded on the basis
that in Vinod Kumar Goel case, the said employee had
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 5 of 14
been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, which was
carved out of the State of Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) in
the year 2000 whereas the respondents continued with
State of Uttar Pradesh. Counsel has also pressed into
service the principle of estoppel, acquiescence and
waiver, as according to the appellant they have already
taken the benefit and advantage of the Contributory
Provident Fund, having withdrawn the dues after their
retirement, and, therefore, they cannot now be
permitted to claim pension.
9. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
respondents were temporary employees working under
the Scheme and therefore would not be entitled to the
benefit of pensionary benefits unless specifically held
entitled to by the competent authority. What has been
asserted is that the distinction has to be drawn between
the temporary and the regular employees. Therefore,
they cannot be held entitled to the same benefits as
regular government employees since the respondents
were working under the Scheme. He, on this basis, has
prayed for setting aside the order impugned and
dismissal of the Writ Petition preferred by the
respondents.
10. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents has supported the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble High Court, asserting that the case of the
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 6 of 14
respondents has rightly been held to be covered by the
ratio of the judgment in Vinod Kumar Goel’s case.
11. He thus contends that once the rules applicable to the
Cane Development Department have been made
applicable to the employees under the Scheme, they
would be entitled to the same benefits provided they
fulfil the requirements laid down thereunder.
12. Referring to the documents appended along with the
Special Leave Petition, he has asserted that a conscious
positive decision had been taken by the government to
grant the benefits based on a
proposal/recommendation of the Cane Commissioner
vide letter dated 29.09.1997, qualifying it as limited to
the extent of financial expenses being borne by internal
sources. Emphasis has also been placed upon the
decision dated 12.11.1997 whereby the employees
under the scheme were to be covered by the service
rules, government orders, regulations and bye-laws as
applicable to the Cane Development Department. Once
the said rules had been made applicable and a
conscious decision had been taken by the government
vide communication/decision dated 29.09.1997 with
regard to the grant of all the benefits, the subsequent
decision dated 13.11.2002 of the Sugarcane
Commissioner would not sustain.
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 7 of 14
13. Senior Counsel has, with reference to the delay in
approaching the Court, asserted that the date of
retirement of the respondents may not be relevant as
pension is a recurring benefit to which an employee is
entitled every month. The claim would not extinguish
merely because of the lapse of time. Referring to the
chart appended along with the appeal here, the counsel
asserts that there has been no inordinate delay on their
part. Referring to the impugned judgment, he has
pointed out that the High Court has itself mentioned
that some of the petitioners had earlier approached the
Court challenging the notice for their retirement at the
age of 58 years by filing Writ Petitions wherein, in the
light of interim orders, they were allowed to continue in
service till they attained the age of 60 years. It has also
been pointed out that the State Government vide
notification dated 28.11.2001 amended Rule 56 of the
Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, enhancing the age
of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. With these
rules having been made applicable by the appellants
and as held by this Court in Vinod Kumar Goel’s case
(supra), respondents would be entitled to the said
benefit, which has been rightly granted to them. In light
of the above, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
14. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel for the parties, we find
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 8 of 14
ourselves in agreement with the principles which form
the basis of the judgment of the High Court. The facts,
as narrated above, make things amply clear. The
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.
15. This Court vide its earlier judgment in the case of Vinod
Kumar Goel (supra) 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.
16. Dealing with the distinction which is being sought to be
pleaded by the appellant with reference to the non-
applicability of the judgment passed by this Court in
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 9 of 14
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. This
plea of the appellant, at the first blush, may appear to
be attractive, but the fact is that at the time of
appointment, 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. Principle of
estoppel, acquiescence and waiver as sought to be
pressed into service by the appellants for the reason
that the amount had been withdrawn of the
Contributory Provident Fund by the respondents,
again, would not be of any benefit to the appellant as
the respondents had no option but to resort to the
same. 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
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 10 of 14
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.
17. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant that switch over from one scheme to the other
scheme is not permissible under the rules for which
reference has been made and reliance placed on the
judgment in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Nigam Limited
1
vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal and Others , would be
of no avail on facts. When seen, this was a case where
an option was given to the employee to switch over from
the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the
Pension Scheme, which option had not been exercised
by him thus the said employee was held not entitled to
the benefit of the Pension Scheme. Similarly, reliance
placed on the judgment in Union of India and Others
2
vs. M. K. Sarkar , would also be of any benefit as it
was held that when given a chance to change of option
by the employee, if not exercised, would disentitle the
employee for the claim.
These judgments are thus distinguishable both on facts
and the issues involved herein. In the present case,
1
2015 (12) SCC 51
2
2010, (2) SCC 59
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 11 of 14
there was no option given for switchover to the
respondents rather it was asserted that they were not
entitled to pension which, as held above, has been
found to be unsustainable. Further, there has been
claims for pension etc. put forth by them within
reasonable time.
18. As regards the objection of the appellants with regard
to the delay on the part of the respondents in
approaching the Court based on reliance placed on the
judgments in U.P. Jal Nigam and Another vs.
3
Jaswant Singh and Another and Sarva Shramik
Sangh vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and
4
Others is concerned those would not be of much help
since in those cases, the claims were put forth after an
inordinate unexplained delay, whereas in the present
case, the respondents had either retired subsequent to
date of decision while others had approached the High
Court and obtained interim benefit of continuing in
service till the age of 60 years.
19. This Court in various judgments has clearly held and
settled 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
3
(2006) 11 SCC 464
4
(2009) 11 SCC 609
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 12 of 14
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. In the
present case also, therefore, the benefit of arrears of
pension can be restricted to three years prior to the date
of filing of the Writ Petition.
20. In light of the above, the appeal stands 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. In case there is still some amount due to be paid
by the respondents, the said amount shall be conveyed
to the respondents within a period of two weeks after
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 13 of 14
the expiry of the initial one month as granted, which
shall thereafter be deposited by the respondents within
a period of two weeks. On doing so, the arrears and/or
pension as per entitlement would be paid within thirty
days.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………..……….……………………..J.
[ ABHAY S. OKA ]
……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 20, 2025
CIVIL APPEAL No (s). 1080 of 2017 Page 14 of 14