STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus ROADWAYS MINISTERIAL STAFF ASSOCIATION U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 08-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
A. 
v. 
ROADWAYS MINISTERIAL STAFF ASSOCIATION U.P. 
ANDANR. 
MAY 8, 1996 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Seivice Law: 
UP. State Roadways 01ganisation (Abolition of Posts and Absmption C 
of Employees) Rules, 1982. 
Rules 4, 5 and 8(ii )-Employees in UP. State Roadways 01ganisa-
tion-Abs01ption in service of UP. State Road Transport Corpora-
tion-Provisions regarding pensionmy benefits-Rules giving option to 
employee on deputation who does not wish to be absorbed in se1vice of D 
Co1_poration to intin1ate the Govenunent within three 111onths front notifica-
tion of the Rules in the Gazette-Employees not exercising option-Effect 
of-Held, employee is deemed to have opted for absorption in C01pora-
tion-Govenunent shall bear liability for pension, which does not include 
family pension, and gralllity in propmtion to the extent of period of se1vice E 
with the Govemment rendered by an employee before the date of his being 
placed on deputation with Corporation-Entire liability for family pension 
should be borne by Co1poration-Tl1ree n1ontl1s' cut off pe1iod given under 
the Rules is appropliate and reasonable---C01poration is liable to bear liability 
of a deemed employee from the date mentioned in Rule 8(ii) read with Rule F 
4(2) and Rule 5--Employees are not entitled to count the pe1iod from the 
date of deputation till date of abs01ption to be Govemment employee for 
con1putation of pensiona1y benefit~Rules arc not ultra vires the Constitu-
tion. 
Constitution of India 
A1ticles 14, 16 and 301}-Rule 8(ii) of U.P. State Roadways 01ganisa-
tion (Abolition of Posts and Abs01ptio11 of Employees) Rules, 1982 providing 
for liability of UP. State Road Transp01t Corporation for pensionmy benefits 
G 
to eniployees absorbed in Co1poration-Held,-not ultra vires the Constitution. H 
565 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9040 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order uated 22.5.91 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 3273 of 1982. 
B 
KS. Chauhan and R.B. Misra for the Appellants. 
Aseem Mehrotra and A.P. Medh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C 
Leave granted. 
We have heard counsel on both sides. 
The respondent-Association filed Writ Petition No. 3273/82 in the 
High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench seeking to declare Ruic S(ii) of 
D the U.P. State Roadways Organisation (Abolition of Posts & Absorption 
of Employees) Rules, 1982 made in exercise of the power under Article 
309 of the Constitution (for short, the 'Rules'), as ultra vires and also for 
issue of a mandamus restraining the appellants from changing their status 
of Government servants as the Corporation employees. The Division Bench 
E in the impugned order held as under : 
F 
G 
"In view of what has been stated above, Part or Rule 8 is valid and 
the absorption rules of the employees are perfectly valid. The writ 
petition to the above extent deserves to be dismissed and regarding 
pensionary benefits it is allowed. A direction is issued to the 
opposite parties to opt those options who were sent on deputation 
vide G.O. dated 7.6.1972 as amended by G.O. dated 5.7.1972 to 
the Corporation notwithstanding the fact that they have not at-
tained the age of superannuation and on the date of absorption 
they will still continue in service, they will be entitled to all 
pensionary benefits and for that purpose they will be treated in 
Government service. But for the above relief, the writ petitions are 
hereby dismissed and interim order, if any stands discharged. 
Ho\vever, there \Vill be no order as to costs.
11 
The question, therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High Court 
H is correct in law? It is not in dispute that the members of the respondent-
STATE v. ROADWAYS MINISTERIAL STAFF ASSN. U.P. 
567 
Association had their status as Government employees but they had come A 
on deputation lo the Corporation. Rule 4(1) of the Rules envisages as 
under: 
"4(1) An employee of the U.P. State Roadways Organisation, who 
was placed on deputation with the Corporation and who does not 
wish to be absorbed in the service of the Corporation shall, within 
3 months from the· notification of these Rules in the Gazette, 
intimate the Secretary to Government in the Transport Depart-
ment that he does not wish to be so absorbed." 
Rule 5 envisages as under : 
"The relevant posts in the U.P. State Roadways Organis

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