Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3959 OF 2019
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29305 of 2008]
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. .. Appellants
Versus
Maslahuddin (Dead) .. Respondents
[ WITH C.A. No. 3960 of 2019 [@ SLP (C) No. 29295 of 2008] and
C.A. No. 3961 of 2019 [@ SLP (C) No. 29293 of 2008]
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Delay in filing the applications for substitution in SLP (C) No.
29305 of 2008 and SLP (C) No. 29293 of 2008 is condoned.
Abatement, if any, is set aside and the applications for substitution
are allowed in terms of the prayer made.
1.1 Leave granted.
2. As common question of law and facts arise in these appeals,
Signature Not Verified
as such, arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2019.04.29
17:06:19 IST
Reason:
2
the High Court, all these appeals are being disposed of by this
common judgment and order.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 4138
(M/S) of 2005, Writ Petition No. 4139 (M/S) of 2005 and Writ
Petition No. 3946 (M/S) of 2005, by which the High Court has
dismissed the said writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein
– U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and has confirmed the
awards declared by the Labour Court holding that the original
respondents before the High Court were entitled to be
superannuated at the age of 60 years, the original petitioners – U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Corporation’) and another have preferred the present appeals.
4. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as
under:
That the respondents herein were the employees as Drivers with the
appellantCorporation on 29.08.1979 initially as temporary
employees on a pay scale of Rs.185DRO321542356265. It
appears that before the establishment of the appellantCorporation
the pay scale of the employees in the State Government was based
3
on the recommendations in the years 19711973 of the U.P. Pay
Commission. That, accordingly when the U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service
Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Service
Regulations’) came into force on 19.06.1981, the pay scales of the
employees were classified according to the classification done by the
Government. Regulation 8(1) of the Service Regulations provided
that an employee whose pay scale was Rs.200/ or more, was
placed in Group “C” and an employee whose pay scale was less
than Rs.200/, was placed in Group “D”. Regulation 37 of the
Service Regulations provided that the employees of Group “C” shall
retire at the age of 58 years, while the employees of Group “D” shall
retire at the age of 60 years. According to the appellants, after the
aforesaid Regulations came into force in the year 1982, the State
Government, on the basis of the recommendations of the Second
Pay Commission, revised the pay scale and the classification of the
posts of all the Government employees according to the Office
Memorandum No. 15/140/81Personnel1 dated 27.02.1982. It
appears that the revision of pay scales and the revision in
classification of posts for the State Government employees resulted
in much agitation amongst the appellantCorporation employees
4
and, therefore, there was a need to revise the pay scales and the
classification of the posts of all the employees of the appellant
Corporation. According to the appellants, accordingly in the year
1982, on the basis of the recommendations of the Second Pay
Commission, the minimum pay scale of the drivers of the
Corporation was revised to Rs.335/ from Rs.200/. According to
the appellants, thereafter the Board of Directors, in exercise of their
powers under Regulation 8(b) of the Service Regulations, 1981, vide
their Resolutions in 19841985 revised the classification of posts of
all the employees, including the drivers and the latter were
accordingly placed in Group “C” as their pay scale was already
revised to Rs.335/ and above at the relevant time. It appears that
in view of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, a
proposal No. 09 by the Regional Manager, the Board of Directors of
th
the appellantCorporation in their 84 Meeting dated 18.01.1984 in
exercise of their powers under Regulation 8(b) resolved to fix the age
of superannuation of Drivers and Conductors as 58 years and
placed them in Group “C”. That vide Resolution No. 1415 of 1985,
the Board of Directors resolved that the classification of the posts of
all the employees would be revised in view of the recommendations
of the Second Pay Commission and that, in the present context, as
5
the pay scale of the Drivers and Conductors have been revised to
Rs.335841510495 and above, they would be placed in Group
“C”. That by notification dated 10.06.1985 of the Managing
Director of the appellantCorporation, the classification of posts of
all the employees were revised in view of the abovenoted resolution
of the Board of Directors. It was also clarified that the revision in
classification will be applicable while determining the age of
retirement of the employees. According to the appellant
Corporation, accordingly the drivers, including the respondents
herein, were placed in Group “C” class of employees and admittedly
they had been drawing the salary of Group “C” pay scale till the age
of their retirement. That the respondents herein were retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years treating
and considering them in Group “C”. The respondents challenged
the order of retirement before the Labour Court. That by a common
judgment and award dated 23.09.2004, the Labour Court held that
the age of retirement of the concerned workmenDrivers shall be 60
years as they were appointed before 30.06.1982.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
and award passed by the Labour Court holding that the age of
retirement of the respondents was to be at 60 years and that the
6
respondents were wrongly retired at the age of 58 years, the
appellantCorporation preferred the writ petitions before the High
Court.
5.1 That, by the impugned common Judgment and order, the High
Court has dismissed the said writ petitions and has confirmed the
Judgment and award passed by the Labour Court.
5.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant
Corporation has preferred the present appeals.
6. Ms. Garima Prashad, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the appellantsCorporation has vehemently submitted that, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed
a grave error in holding that the respective respondents who were
working as the Drivers belonged to Group “D” category. It is
submitted that, consequently, the High Court has committed a
grave error in holding that their age of superannuation shall be 60
years.
6.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the appellants that the High Court has not properly
appreciated and considered the fact that though initially in the year
1979 when the respective respondents were appointed, they were in
7
the pay scale of Rs.185DRO321542356265. However,
subsequently, their pay scale was revised retrospectively and they
were placed in the pay scale of Rs.335841510495 and, in fact,
they were also paid the arrears. It is submitted that, therefore,
when their pay scale was revised to Rs.335/ from Rs.200/ with
retrospective effect, all the respective respondentsDrivers would fall
in Group “C” and, therefore, as per the rules, their age of
superannuation would be 58 years.
6.2 Relying upon the rejoinder filed on behalf of the appellants
dated 28.03.2019, it is submitted that, in the year 1982, the pay
scales of all employees of the Corporation were revised on the basis
of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission. It is
submitted that accordingly the pay scale of all the drivers of the
Corporation was revised to Rs.335/ from Rs.200/. It is submitted
that the pay scale of the respective respondents was also revised to
Rs.335/ w.e.f. the date of their appointment and they received the
arrears also for the period from July 1979 to August 1981 [SLP (C)
No. 29305/2008]. It is submitted that thereafter on 18.01.1984,
th
the Board of Directors of the Corporation in their 84 Meeting
resolved to fix the age of superannuation of the Drivers and
Conductors as 58 years and place them in Group “C”. It is
8
st
submitted that again in their 91 Meeting in the year 1985, the
Board of Directors resolved that the classification of posts of all the
employees would be revised in view of the recommendations of the
Second Pay Commission and that the pay scale of the Drivers and
Conductors was again revised to Rs. 335841510495 and above
and they would be placed in Group ‘C’. It is submitted that
thereafter, on 10.06.1985, the above resolution was notified and it
was clarified that the revision in classification will be applicable
while determining the age of retirement of the employees. It is
submitted that accordingly, all Drivers, including the respective
respondents, were placed in Group “C” class of employees. It is
submitted that in fact all the respondents were drawing the salary
of Group “C” pay scale till the age of their retirement. It is
submitted that all the Drivers, including the respective
respondents, were paid the arrears as per the revised pay scale of
Rs. 335841510495. It is submitted that as the respondents
Drivers accepted the revised minimum pay scale to Rs.335/ of
Group “C” and have throughout received the salary of Group “C”
class of employees, and that their last drawn salary at the time of
their retirement was as per the pay scale of Group “C” employees,
both the Labour Court as well as the High Court have committed a
9
grave error in holding the contrary and thereby have materially
erred in holding that the age of superannuation of the respective
respondentsDrivers was 60 years.
6.3 It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the appellants that even this grievance was raised by the concerned
respondentsDrivers belatedly, approximately after six years of the
retirement.
6.4 It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellants that, as such, the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in a similar matter in a writ petition titled as
filed by the retired
Brij Prasad Tewari v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors.
drivers of the appellantCorporation challenging the age of
retirement as 58 years, dismissed the said writ petition holding that
in the absence of the agreement as to the age of superannuation
between the employer and the employee, the same shall be at
completion of 58 years of age by the employees.
6.5 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
present appeals.
7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective
respondentsDrivers while supporting the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court has vehemently submitted that, as
10
such, the respective respondentsDrivers when they were appointed
as the Drivers in the year 1979 were in the pay scale of Rs. 185
DRO321542356265. It is submitted that, therefore, all such
drivers who were getting the salary less than Rs.200/ were to be
placed and/or considered in Group “D”. It is submitted that even
their pay scale was revised subsequently i.e. after 1982 and in fact
the Corporation resolved to fix the age of superannuation of Driver
and Conductors as 58 years and place them in Group “C” in the
year 1984. It is submitted that, therefore, the resolution dated
18.01.1984 being Resolution No. 1319/1984 resolved to fix the age
of superannuation of the Drivers and Conductors as 58 years and
to place them in Group “C”, would not be applicable retrospectively.
It is submitted that, as prior to 1982 or even 1984, the respective
Drivers were in the pay scale of Rs. 185DRO321542356265
and their salary was less than Rs.200/, all of them would fall in
Group “D” and therefore, considering the Rules prevailing at the
relevant time, their age of superannuation would be 60 years being
Group “D” employees.
7.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents that whatever is stated now that their pay
scale was revised retrospectively and/or they were paid the arrears
11
was not placed before the High Court. It is further submitted that
there is no material placed on record to substantiate the above.
7.2 Making the above submissions, it is vehemently submitted by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
respondentsDrivers that the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is not required to be interfered with by this
Court. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length. The issue in the present appeals is in a
very narrow compass. The short question which is posed for
consideration by this Court is whether the respective respondents
Drivers would fall in Group “D” or Group “C”?
8.1 It is required to be noted that all those employees who were
getting the salary less then Rs.200/ would fall in Group “D”
category. As per the Rules prevailing at the relevant time, the
employees getting salary more than Rs.200/ would fall in Group
“A”, “B” or “C” as per the classification and those who would not fall
in either Group “A”, “B” or “C” category, they would fall in Group
“D” category. As per the Rules prevailing at the relevant time, the
age of superannuation of Group “D” employees was 60 years and for
12
the others, i.e. Group “A”, “B” and “C”, the age of retirement was 58
years.
8.2 It appears that at the time when the respective respondents
Drivers were appointed, they were in the pay scale of Rs.185DRO
321542356265 and under the normal circumstances they
would fall in Group “D” category and therefore their age of
superannuation would be 60 years. However, it is required to be
noted and so stated in the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellantCorporation dated 28.02.2019 that in the year 1982 the
pay scale of all the employees of the Corporation was revised,
including the Drivers, and the pay scale of the Drivers of the
Corporation was revised to Rs.335/ from Rs.200/. It is further
stated that the pay scale of the respondents was also revised to
Rs.335/ w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment and they were
also paid the arrears from the date of their initial appointment till
August, 1981. It is further stated in the affidavit that, in the year
1984, it was resolved to fix the age of superannuation of the Drivers
and Conductors as 58 years and place them in Group “C”. It is also
further stated that, in the year 1985, the Board of Directors
resolved that the classification of posts of all the employees would
be revised in view of the recommendations of the Second Pay
13
Commission and that the pay scale of the Drivers and Conductors
was again revised to Rs. 335841510495 and above and that they
would be placed in Group “C”. It is further stated that the above
resolution was notified on 10.06.1985 and it was also clarified that
the revision in classification will be applicable while determining the
age of retirement of the employees. It is stated that accordingly all
the drivers, including the respondents herein, were placed in Group
“C” class of employees as they were drawing the salary of Group “C”
pay scale till their age of retirement. It is further stated that,
pursuant to the above notification, all the drivers, including the
respondents, were paid the arrears on the revised pay scale of Rs.
335841510495.
8.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
produced before this Court the service record of one or two
respondents to substantiate the above and in support of their case
that the drivers were paid the arrears on revision of their pay scale.
There is no further counter on behalf of the respondents to the
rejoinder filed on behalf of the appellantCorporation. Therefore,
the averments in the rejoinder on behalf of the appellant
Corporation had gone uncontroverted.
14
8.4 In view of the above, both the Labour Court as well as the
High Court have committed a grave error in holding that the
respective respondentsDrivers were in Group “D” category and that
their age of superannuation would be 60 years. As the pay scale of
the respective respondentsDrivers was revised to Rs.335841510
495 with retrospective effect and in fact they were paid the arrears
also, thereafter it was not open for the respondentsDrivers to
contend that as per their original pay scale, their salary was less
than Rs.200/ on the pay scale of 185DRO321542356265,
they would be in Group “D” category. Once having taken the
advantage of the revised pay scale retrospectively and that their pay
scale was revised to Rs. 335841510495 with retrospective effect
and they were paid the arrears which the respective respondents
accepted, in that case, they would fall in Group “C” category and,
therefore, considering the Rules, their age of superannuation would
be 58 years and not 60 years, as contended on behalf of the
respective respondentsDrivers. Therefore, the appellant
Corporation rightly retired/superannuated the respective
respondentsDrivers on completion of 58 years of age.
9. In view of the above and the reasons stated above, all these
appeals succeed and the impugned common judgment and order
15
passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. In the
facts and circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to
costs.
........................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
........................................J.
[M. R. SHAH]
New Delhi,
April 16, 2019.