LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus RUK MANGAL SINGH RATHAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
ST A TE OF U.P. AND ORS.
v.
RUK MANG AL SINGH RA THAUR
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]
Service Law:
Co-operative Federation Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976:
Regulation 17-Co-operative Supervisor-Promoted as Co-operative
Inspector Grade-JI-Claim for reckoning service rendered as Co-operative
Supervisor for pensionary benefits as Government servant-Held, co-operative
supervisor is under the control of Co-operative Federation Authority-There
D is no provision in the Regulations to provide pensionary benefits to its
empldyees-Tribunal and High Court erred in directing to add the period of
service rendered as co-operative Supervisor for reckoning pensionary benefits
of retired co-operative Inspector Grade-II-Subordinate Co-operative Service
Rules, 1979.
E
Respondents in the present appeals were appointed as Cooperative
Supervisors, which was a non-government post, and promoted to the post of
Co-operative Inspector Grade II. On their retirement from the post of Co-
operative Inspector Grade-II, they filed petitions before the Tribunal claiming
that the period of their service rendered as Co-operative Supervisor be
F reckoned for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits as Government
servants. The Tribunal allowed their claim. Since the High Court in the writ
petitions filed by the State Government declined to interfere, the Government
filed the present appeals.
G
H
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Under the Co-operative Federation Authority (Business)
Regulations 1976, the post of Co-operative Supervisor has been brought under
· the control of Co-operative Federation Authority. There is no provision in the
·{Regulations providing pension or pensionary benefits to its employees.
Therefore, the Tribunal and the High Court clearly erred in law and in facts
746
~·····
STATEOFU.P. v. RUKMANGALSINGHRATHAUR
747
in directing the period they served as Co-operative Supervisors to be added A
for reckoning the pensionary benefits of retired Co-operative Inspectors Grade
II. (754-C-DI
1.2. A fascicule reading of the definitions of Rules 4(d) and 4(p) clearly
indicates the intendment of the legislature. Definition in Rule 4(d) is the clear
intendment of the legislature that the Co-operative Supervisor shall be under B
the employment of the Co-operative Institutions; whereas in Rule 4(p) village
level workers have been brought under the employment of the community
development department in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, wherever
the legislature intended to do so, they have done it expressly. There is no doubt
that the post of Co-operative Supervisor was completely kept out of the purview C
of the government department. (753-E-Gl
1.3. This apart, the relevant provisions of Part III of the Rules which
deal with the recruitment, to the post of Group II from two sources, namely,
by direct recruitment through the Commission and by promotion through the
Commission, also. clarified the intendment of the legislature that the D
employees can come to the government service only through the procedure
established by the Rules and Regulations. Besides even on basis of the Office
Circular dated 1.7.1989 issued by the Government ofU.P. on the admissibility
ofpensionary benefits on superannuation of temporary government employees,
none of the respondents served for a period of 10 years as Inspector Grade II
with effect from 1.6.1989 so as to avail the benefit of the Government Circular E
dated 1.7.1989. The impugned orders of the High Court as well as the orders
of the Tribunal are set aside. 1753-H; 754-C, E; 755-CI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7318 of2003.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 20-11-2001 of the High Court F
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in W.P. No. 2108 (SS)
19%.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 7350, 7320, 7321, 7322, 7323, 7324, 7325, 7326, 7327, 7328, G
7329, 7330, 7331, 7332, 7333, 7334, 7335, 7336, 7337, 7338- 7339, 7342, 7343-
7349, 7351, 7352 of2003, C.A. No. 5243 of2006 (arising out ofSLP (Civil) No.
21480 of2002 and C.A. No. 5242 of2006 (arising out of SLP (civil) No. 22787
of 2002 and W.P. (Civil) No. 647 of2002.
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A
Dr. R.G. Padia, Shobha Dikshit, Vivek Singh, Javed M. Rao, Shahid Ali
Rao, MusharrafChawdhry, Kamlendra Mishra, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ashok
K. Srivastava, T. Mahipal, Naresh Kaushik, Lalitha Kaushik, BExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.