STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus VIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 10-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
699
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
v.
VIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 4802-4803 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 10, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 –
ss.8, 15, 92, 94(2)(nn), 95(1)(f), 95(2) – Appellant decided to
implement 6th Pay Commission Report w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and issued
order dated 08.12.2008 – Said order excluded its applicability to
the employees of local bodies and public enterprises – Regulation
framed by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (the Board) regarding
pension/family pension & gratuity scheme – Appellant issued order
approving pay band, grade pay etc. in the revised pay structure to
the Board’s employees – Another order clarified that arrears of
revised pay from 01.01.2006 to 13.01.2010 shall not be admissible
to them – Appellant issued letter dated 05.05.2015 regarding
pensionary benefits to Board’s employees in compliance of order
passed by Supreme Court in Preetam Singh’s case – Board issued
consequential order dated 05.05.2015 – Writ petitions filed inter
alia for quashing order dated 05.05.2015 – Allowed vide order dated
16.03.2018 inter alia holding that Government Order dated
08.12.2008 would apply in its entirety to the Board’s employees –
In another writ petition, mandamus was issued inter alia to grant
benefit of arrears of salary payable to Board’s employees from
01.01.2006 to 13.01.2010 – Special Appeal dismissed on 26.11.2018
– Present SLPs filed against orders dtd. 16.03.2018 and 26.11.2018
– Submissions made only on the question as to whether judgment in
Preetam Singh’s case reported as [2014] 10 SCR 910 requires
reference to larger Bench or not – Held: Main issue considered in
Preetam Singh’s case was as to whether the State Govt. has
jurisdiction to issue direction for non-implementing pension/family
pension & gratuity scheme on the employees of the Board – It was
held that it is open to the State Govt. to issue directions on question
of policy to all the Public Corporations in State of U.P but only in
respect of questions of policy having a nexus to the “discharge of
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 699
699
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
its functions” – It was also held that Board’s functions are relatable
only to the functions stipulated in s.15 and that “the conditions of
service of employees do not constitute the functions of the Vikas
Parishad” – s.15 does not include conditions of the service of the
employees as one of Board’s functions but s.15(1) begins with words
“subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations”
– Preetam Singh did not consider other provisions of ss.8, 92,
95(1)(f) and the expression “subject to the provisions of the Act,
rules and regulations” which was expression of extreme importance
and intended to amplify and add other functions to the Board as
provided in the Act, rules and regulations – s.95 (Power to make
regulations) has to be read in functions of the Board as contemplated
by s.15 – Bench in Preetam Singh erred in laying down that
conditions of service of the employees do not constitute the functions
of the Vikas Parishad– It cannot be said that State Govt. had no
jurisdiction to issue directions regarding service conditions of the
employees –  State can exercise its jurisdiction u/Art.162 to issue
executive orders regulating the conditions of service of the officers
and servants employed in the affairs of the State – Judgment in
Preetam Singh needs reconsideration – Questions formulated – To
be considered by larger Bench – U.P. State Control Over Public
Corporation Act, 1975 – Constitution of India – Art.162; VIIth
Schedule- Entry 41 List 5.
Directing the papers of the present cases to be placed
before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench,
the Court
HELD: 1.1 Chapter III of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 deals with the functions and
powers of the Board. Section 15 does not include conditions of
the service of the employees as one of the functions of the Board
but Section 15(1) begins with words “subject to the provisions of
this Act and the rules and regulations”, thus, functions of the
Board as enumerated in Section 15 are subject to the provisions
of 1965 Act. Thus, functions of the Board as enumerated in Section
15 are not exhaustive and have to be read along with functions of
the Board as per other provisions of the Act, rules and regulations.
Section 8 of the Act is an appropriate illust

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