LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC versus PURUSHOTTAM PANDEY AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. A -..< v. PURUSHOTTAM PANDEY AND ORS. ETC. OCTOBER 24, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B Service Law : Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Con- tributary Provident Fund----Insuranc~Pension Rules, 1964 (Triple Benefit c Scheme) Rules 3 and 17-Applicability of-Only to certain category ?f institu- tions-Agricultural institution-Not falling within the category-Held, Rules not applicable to employees of Agricultural institutions, since not covered under Rule rTherefore applicability of Rule 17 does not arise. Constitution of India, Art 136 : D Dismissal of Special Leave Petition against interim order of High Court wherein applicability of the Rules, was not considered-Disposal of the main Petition by High Court, in view of the order of the Special Leave Peti- lion-Without examining applicability of the Rules-Held, the dismissal of E Special Leave Petition would not tantamount to a definite conclusion of this Court with regard to the applicability of the Rules-It only meant that there was no justification to inteif ere with the interim direction. Respondents were employees of an agricultural institution; imparting 2 years Agricultural Extension diploma course, which was run by private F management recognised by the State Government. State Government decided to abolish the said diploma course and the institution was asked to be stopped. Though the government. was intending to bring such institu· tions under the Triple Benefit Scheme Rules, but no final decision emanated. In view of the stoppage of the institutions, the services of the G respondents were terminated. Respondents made representation to the ___, .. State Government, praying that provisions of Triple Benefit Scheme be made available to them. The representation was rejected. Respondents filed writ petition before High Court, for grant of post retiral benefits under the Triple Benefit Scheme. High Court by its interim order directed State Government to pay the retiral benefits under the Scheme, because the State H 723 724 SUPR,EME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A had not filed the counter. to the petition within time. The State approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition against the interim order, which was dismissed, without interfering with the .order. B The High Comt allowed the writ petition, without considering the applicability of the s1:heme, on the ground that since Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the interim order, the writ petition must succeed. In appeal to this Court, the appellant State contended that the in- C stitution being not one of the categories of institutions mentioned in Rule 3 of the Scheme, the Scheme is not applicable to the respondent and that D E the dismissal of Special Leave Petition against the interim order, cannot be construed to mean that this Court had held that the Scheme is applicable to respondents. Allowiug the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The Triple Benefit Scheme has no application to the employees of the agricultural institutions like respondents and the High Court com~itted gross error in making the said rule applicable. [730-H, 731-A] . 1.2. A plain reading of Rule 3 unequivocally indicates that only five categories of institutiions mentioned therein would be covered by the Triple Benefit _Scheme Rules provided those categories of institutions are either run by a local body or by a Private Management and are recognised by Competent Authority for the purpose of payment of grant-in-aid. The in- F stitution in question, though run by PriVate Management and was in receipt of grant-in-aid, but the same is neither a Primary School nor a Junior High School, nor a Higher Secondary School, nor a Degree College, nor a Train- ing College and, therefore, the said institution and the employees serving in the said institution cannot be said to be covered under Rule 3 of the G Rules. [728·H, 729·A·BJ 1.3. Neither thu Triple Benefit Scheme applies to the institution where the respondent were serving proprio·vigore, nor the government has taken any final decision making the Scheme applicable. [730·F] H 2. The earlier order of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by this · STATEv. PURUSHOTTAMPANDEY(PATTANAIK,J.) 725 Court against an interim direction of High Court would not tantamount to A a definite conclusion of this Court that Triple Benefit Scheme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.