HARI RAM GUPTA (DEAD) THROUGH L.R. KASTURI DEVI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 854 · Decided: 22-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARi RAM GUPTA (DEAD) THROUGH L.R. 
KASTURI DEVI 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
B 
JULY 22, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
C 
UP. Pa/ika (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefits Rules, 1981 
Rule 3. 
Retirement Benefits-Pension Provident Fund Scheme to Pension 
Scheme- Switchover from-Availability of-To employees who had already 
retired from service-Held : Rules do not have retrospective operation-
D Hence, those employees who had retired before the Rules had come into 
force, not entitled to pension-UP. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966. 
Retirement Benefits-Cut-off date-Pension-Revised scheme-
Employees who had already retired- Employee retired after Rules came into 
force-Rules provided for switchover from Provident Fund Scheme to Pension 
E Scheme-Automatic applicability of Rules-Held : Pension retirees and 
provident fond retirees do not form one homogenous class-Hence, contention 
based on Nakara's case that all retirees formed one homogenous class and 
entitled to benefits of revised scheme, rejected-Constitution of India, 1950, 
Art. 14. 
F 
Words and Phrases : 
"Finally withdrawn "-Meaning of-Jn the context of R. 3 of UP. Palika 
(Centralised) Service Retirement Benefits Rules, 1981. 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming that 
he was entitled for pension under the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service 
G Retirement Benefits Rules, 1981 which came into fm:ce one year after the 
appellant had retired from service on superannuation. The High Court 
dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Rules applied 
retrospectively and that the appellant was entitled in terms of Rule 3(2) and 
H (3) to exercise option for switching over from provident fund scheme fo 
854 
H.R. GUPTA (DEAD) THROUGH L.R. KASTURI DEVI v. STATE 
855 
pension scheme because it was provided in Rule 3 (3) that "if an officer A 
opting for these Rules has finally withdrawn the amounts of the Palika 's 
contribution and bonus deposited in his provident fund account, the same 
shall have to be deposited by him into the pension fund ..... along with interest". 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that under Clause 5-C 
(1) of the Pension and General Provident Fund Regulations an employee was B 
entitled to finally withdraw from the provident fund after renderingJS years 
or when he had less than 8 years of service to attain the age of superannuation 
and, therefore, the expression "finally withdrawn" in Rule 3(3) did not mean 
that the Rules h_ad a retrospective operation. 
Dismissing the appeal, tlils Court 
HELD : 1. The expression "finally withdrawn" as envisaged in Rule 
3(3) of the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 
would mean those final withdrawals made by an employee while continuing 
c 
in service for the purposes mentioned in Clause S-C(2) of the Pension and D 
General Provident Fund Regulations. Consequently, the argument that a 
combined reading of Rules 3(2) and (3) indicates that the Rules have 
retrospective application is devoid of any force and the same accordingly 
stands rejected. (860-E) 
Shakuntala Mehrishi v. New Delhi Municipal Commitee, (1990) 3 SCC E 
521, held inapplicable. 
2.1. Nakara 's case considered in a subsequent Constitution Bench 
judgement in Krishana Kumar's case wherein it was explained that the 
pension retirees and provident fund retirees do not form one homogeneous 
class and on the other hand the Rules governing the provident fund and its F 
contribution and entirely different form the Rules governing pension and, 
therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the 
pension retirees must also equally be applicable to Provident Fund retirees. 
It was further held in Krishna Kumar's case that the rights of each individual 
retire finally crystallised on his retirement where after no continuing G 
obligation remained in case of those who are governed by Provident Fund 
Rules whereas in case of Pension retirees the obligation continues till the 
death of the employee. This Court categorically held that Naka~a's case 
could not be an authority for the decision in Krishna kumar 's case. In 
subsequent decisions also this Court held that whenever the Government or 
an authority frames a scheme for persons who have superannuated from H 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A service, due to many constraints, it is not 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.