High Court · 1980

"The submission of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that under the Government Order dated 15.12.1976 the petitioners who were erstwhile employees of U.P. Government were given option to join the U.P. Council of Sugar Cane Research, a society which has been constituted in pursuance of this Government Order and the petitioners who had given their option were sent on deputation to the U.P. Control of Sugar Cane Research and later on absorbed with effect from 1.9.1988, that the said Government Order provides that the employees who had opted would be entitled to the same benefits as were available to them as Government Servants and as these benefits were admissible to them as Government Servants the petitioners were entitled to payment of gratuity and pension from the society for the period after their absorption, that however, despite the fact that the petitioners have retired they are not being paid their gratuity and pension from 1.9.1988 the date when they were absorbed, although the benefits that were available to them for earlier period have been given to them by the State Government. It is not disputed by Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 that the pensionary benefits and gratuity is payable to the petitioners by respondent no. 2 but he submits that the stand taken int he counter affidavit is that there is paucity of funds with the respondent no. 2 and as such payment cannot be made. In view of the fact that it is not disputed by the respondents that it is responsibility of responent no. 2 to make the payment of the pensionary benefits and the grauity the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay the pension and gratuity that may be due to the petitoiners, within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is submitted before the respondents. List this case on 8th July, 2002." Nevertheless, the State Government took no action, forcing the Court to pass yet another order on 16.10.2006 to the following effect:- "The petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to pension in view of Rule 21 of U.P. Sugar Cane Research Council Service Rule applicable w.e.f. 1st April 1980. The case of Council is also that the petitioners are entitled for the pension etc. but their stands are tight in view of the fact that the State Government has passed the order dated 22nd November, 1997, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure CA to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, whereby the Government without disclosing any reason has taken decision that in the case of self financing institution the employees of such institution are not entitled for pension etc. The said policy decision appears to be in the teeth of Rule 21, referred to above. Learned Standing Counsel prays for some time to study the matter. As prayed, list the case in the next cause list. In the meantime, the learned Standing Counsel may also obtain instruction from respondent no.1 in this regard." Now a copy of the Government Order dated 9.9.2010 has been brought on record to show that the Government has taken a decision for payment of pension to all the employees of the Council including the petitioners. As noted above, the petitioners have retired long back and they are still awaiting their pension. Let pension be actually paid to the petitioners and their like-wise before the next date and a personal affidavit of the Director of the Council be filed disclosing the exact date and amounts paid to the petitioners. List on 3.12.2010. ”

3. It is a case of petitioners that subsequent to above referred order, pension was granted to petitioners, however, when this writ petition was dismissed in default on 07.12.2017, though restored later on, their pension were reduced initially by 40% and later on by 33%, without any reason and said claim is supported by a document viz. PPO (Pension Pay Order).

4. According to Sri S.A. Ansari and Sri Shubham Dwivedi, learned advocates for petitioners submit that a reason mentioned in counter affidavit to reduce pension was that sufficient amount was not paid by State is unsustainable and they refer a judgment of Supreme Court in Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others, (2022) 4 SCC 363.

5. S/Sri Ravindra Singh and Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for respondents have referred following paragraphs of supplementary counter affidavit filed by State on 03.04.2023 :- “21. That it is also pertinent to mention here that a proposal was also submitted by the Director of Council; vide letter dated 15.06.2015 & 13.05.2016 for allotment of account head from Government Treasury to ensure payment of pension and G.P.F. to employees of Council, at par with the Government employees. The proposal was duly considered at Government level and was found inappropriate and rejected since the employees of Council were not Government employees, and the arrangement of funds for the pension fund was dependent on its own resources, therefore, there would be no need of allotment of account head for the operation of pension scheme for the Council employees, akin to the Government employees. The Director of the Council had been duly informed of the considered decision taken by the Government on his proposal vide order, dated 14.03.2017, which is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE No.-7 to this Affidavit.

22. That it is also submitted that to ensure strict compliance of the Government order dated 25.11.2010, 15.04.2011 and 14.03.2017 and the Government also issued further directions regarding the payment of the pension to the retired employees of the Council vide Government orders dated 11.10.2019 and 24.09.2020. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that in the light of Government orders, dated 25.11.2010, 11.10.2019 15.04.2011, and 24.09.2020 the petitioners' pension shall be relied according to the "Self Financed Pension scheme" as per the availability of pension funds available with the Council. Copy 11.10.2019 of the Government Order, dated and 24.09.2020 issued by the State Government is being annexed collectively hereto as ANNEXURE No.-8 and 9 to this affidavit.

23. That it is submitted that in the aforesaid backdrop, ideally, the Council ought to have made efforts for augmenting their income to meet out the required additional funds for the pension as it was their bouden duty to increase thier annual income by generating maximum revenues by ensuring optimal production, etc on the vast infrastructure and latest technologies available with the Council.

24. That it is also relevant to state here that in the year 2016-17, serious objections were raised on the proposal submitted by the then Director of the Council and therefore, a report was sought by the Office of the Commissioner, from the In-charge Director vide Letter No.: 786/13(02)/S.V.N./Lekha/Budget/2016-17, Dated 02.02.2017. For ready reference of this Hon'ble Court the objections raised on the proposal are being reproduced hereunder:- “(क) गनቐኋ शशोध पररिषद ककी ववितቈኍय विषर 2016-17 मम आआं तररिक सशोतोሦ ससे आय कቐኋ वविविरिण उपलब्ध करिቐኋयम। (ख) सवमवत कसे सआंकल्प वदनቐኋआंक 25.03.2011 कसे ्ቅम मम शቐኋसनቐኋदसेश सआंख्यቐኋय 678 सቈኍ.डቈኍ. वदनቐኋआंक 15.04.2011 दቐኋरिቐኋ पमशन वनधध हसेततु र .500.00 लቐኋख ककी विन टቐኋइम सहቐኋयतቐኋ ्ቚदቐኋन करिनसे हसेततु धनरिቐኋवश स्विቈኍकक त ककी जቐኋ चतुककी हह, तशो ्ቚवतविषर पमशन भतुगतቐኋन हसेततु धनरिቐኋवश मቐኋआंगसे जቐኋनसे कቐኋ क्यቐኋ औवचत्य हह? (ग) स्थቐኋनቈኍय वनधध लसेखቐኋ परिቈኍकቐኋ वविभቐኋग कशो सम्परिቈኍकቐኋ शतुल्क कቐኋ भतुगतቐኋन , जब शक्करि वविशसेष वनधध मतुख्यቐኋलय दቐኋरिቐኋ वकयቐኋ जቐኋतቐኋ हह , तशो इस सम्परिቈኍकቐኋ शतुल्क कቐኋ क्यቐኋ औवचत्य हह?”

25. That despite the aforesaid, and instead of putting up a reply to the said letter, the then In-charge Director of the Council continued to send proposals contrary to the earlier approved scheme. In view of his evident acts of impropriety, an explanation had been sought by the Government on 29.04.2020 from the then In- charge Director for submitting a proposal, in contravention to the Government Order, dated 15.04.2011. It is further submitted that an appropriate action in this regard shall be taken in accordance with law, post the receipt of their replies.

26. That it is submitted that the Petitioner and the entire staff of the Council are the beneficiaries of the scheme, Including the then Director and, therefore, it is verily believed that they have connived and mischievously tried to convert the Self-Financed Pension Scheme into a Government Pension Scheme by sending repeated proposals for budgetary allocation in a deceitful and fraudulent manner. The Government had taken the serious note of the above mentioned improprieties by the concerned staff of the Council and also the concerned staff in the government. Following the principles of natural justice an enquiry was conducted, followed by departmental proceedings as per rules, and the then Director and the concerned Section Officer were duly punished.

27. That it is submitted that a meeting dated 21.05.2020 has also been held under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Department of Sugar Industry and Cane Development and the information was also collected from the Director of the Council as to why the fund under the Self finance pension scheme came in deficit. The pension payment orders of the retired employees were also produced by the Director of the Council and it was found that the same were contrary to the Government Orders, dated 25.11.2010, 11.10.2019 and 24.09.2020 and the same have not be revised in accordance with the aforesaid government orders. It was revealed that only due to this reason that the fund relating to self financed pension scheme came in deficit.”

6. Learned advocates for petitioners submit that these are subsequent events which cannot be held adverse to petitioners, being retired much prior.

7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

8. It is not disputed that Council was run by its own funds and are included under Self-Financed Pension Scheme. It is stand of the State that petitioners were entitled for pension, however, funds have to be generated by Council itself.

9. Subsequent Government Orders are not in challenge. Claim of petitioners that State shall abide by the Government Order dated 15.12.1976 and it cannot be amended subsequently does not have much substance since it does relate to financial matter and admittedly Council has no independent source of income. Otherwise, as referred, said Government Orders are not under challenge.

10. A reliance placed by learned advocates for petitioners Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (supra) that “financial constraints may not be a legal impediment as well as that any adverse amendments which prejudice case of petitioners would be hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”. However, the subsequent Government Orders are still to be tested.

11. This Court vide order dated 30.09.2010 has passed a positive interim order to grant pension on basis of Government letter dated 09.09.2010. Aforesaid interim order is still in existence and neither State nor any other respondents have challenged it before Division Bench of this Court nor have filed any application for modification.

12. Best case of respondents appears to be that they have passed subsequent Government Orders which essentially reflect financial constraints, however, as referred in Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (supra), petitioners may not be put in a prejudiced position without confronting.

13. Still, Court cannot ignore that even in such circumstances, in absence of finances, any mandamus would be difficult to follow.

14. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with following observations and directions :- (a) State-respondent as well as Uttar Pradesh Council of Sugarcane Research Institute will again look into the matter and will take all endeavour to comply the directions passed by this Court by way of above referred order dated 30.09.2010 which was passed on basis of a Government Order dated 04.09.2010. (b) Court also takes note of subsequent Government Orders dated 11.10.2019, 24.09.2020 and 28.12.2021 whereby responsibility of State has been limited. The question of its applicability i.e. proposition of retrospective cannot be decided in present case and further that petitioners will be at liberty to take recourse of legally available remedy. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 N. Sinha NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

"The submission of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that under the Government Order dated 15.12.1976 the petitioners who were erstwhile employees of U.P. Government were given option to join the U.P. Council of Sugar Cane Research, a society which has been constituted in pursuance of this Government Order and the petitioners who had given their option were sent on deputation to the U.P. Control of Sugar Cane Research and later on absorbed with effect from 1.9.1988, that the said Government Order provides that the employees who had opted would be entitled to the same benefits as were available to them as Government Servants and as these benefits were admissible to them as Government Servants the petitioners were entitled to payment of gratuity and pension from the society for the period after their absorption, that however, despite the fact that the petitioners have retired they are not being paid their gratuity and pension from 1.9.1988 the date when they were absorbed, although the benefits that were available to them for earlier period have been given to them by the State Government. It is not disputed by Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 that the pensionary benefits and gratuity is payable to the petitioners by respondent no. 2 but he submits that the stand taken int he counter affidavit is that there is paucity of funds with the respondent no. 2 and as such payment cannot be made. In view of the fact that it is not disputed by the respondents that it is responsibility of responent no. 2 to make the payment of the pensionary benefits and the grauity the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay the pension and gratuity that may be due to the petitoiners, within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is submitted before the respondents. List this case on 8th July, 2002." Nevertheless, the State Government took no action, forcing the Court to pass yet another order on 16.10.2006 to the following effect:- "The petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to pension in view of Rule 21 of U.P. Sugar Cane Research Council Service Rule applicable w.e.f. 1st April 1980. The case of Council is also that the petitioners are entitled for the pension etc. but their stands are tight in view of the fact that the State Government has passed the order dated 22nd November, 1997, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure CA to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, whereby the Government without disclosing any reason has taken decision that in the case of self financing institution the employees of such institution are not entitled for pension etc. The said policy decision appears to be in the teeth of Rule 21, referred to above. Learned Standing Counsel prays for some time to study the matter. As prayed, list the case in the next cause list. In the meantime, the learned Standing Counsel may also obtain instruction from respondent no.1 in this regard." Now a copy of the Government Order dated 9.9.2010 has been brought on record to show that the Government has taken a decision for payment of pension to all the employees of the Council including the petitioners. As noted above, the petitioners have retired long back and they are still awaiting their pension. Let pension be actually paid to the petitioners and their like-wise before the next date and a personal affidavit of the Director of the Council be filed disclosing the exact date and amounts paid to the petitioners. List on 3.12.2010. ”

3. It is a case of petitioners that subsequent to above referred order, pension was granted to petitioners, however, when this writ petition was dismissed in default on 07.12.2017, though restored later on, their pension were reduced initially by 40% and later on by 33%, without any reason and said claim is supported by a document viz. PPO (Pension Pay Order).

4. According to Sri S.A. Ansari and Sri Shubham Dwivedi, learned advocates for petitioners submit that a reason mentioned in counter affidavit to reduce pension was that sufficient amount was not paid by State is unsustainable and they refer a judgment of Supreme Court in Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others, (2022) 4 SCC 363.

5. S/Sri Ravindra Singh and Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for respondents have referred following paragraphs of supplementary counter affidavit filed by State on 03.04.2023 :- “21. That it is also pertinent to mention here that a proposal was also submitted by the Director of Council; vide letter dated 15.06.2015 & 13.05.2016 for allotment of account head from Government Treasury to ensure payment of pension and G.P.F. to employees of Council, at par with the Government employees. The proposal was duly considered at Government level and was found inappropriate and rejected since the employees of Council were not Government employees, and the arrangement of funds for the pension fund was dependent on its own resources, therefore, there would be no need of allotment of account head for the operation of pension scheme for the Council employees, akin to the Government employees. The Director of the Council had been duly informed of the considered decision taken by the Government on his proposal vide order, dated 14.03.2017, which is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE No.-7 to this Affidavit.

22. That it is also submitted that to ensure strict compliance of the Government order dated 25.11.2010, 15.04.2011 and 14.03.2017 and the Government also issued further directions regarding the payment of the pension to the retired employees of the Council vide Government orders dated 11.10.2019 and 24.09.2020. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that in the light of Government orders, dated 25.11.2010, 11.10.2019 15.04.2011, and 24.09.2020 the petitioners' pension shall be relied according to the "Self Financed Pension scheme" as per the availability of pension funds available with the Council. Copy 11.10.2019 of the Government Order, dated and 24.09.2020 issued by the State Government is being annexed collectively hereto as ANNEXURE No.-8 and 9 to this affidavit.

23. That it is submitted that in the aforesaid backdrop, ideally, the Council ought to have made efforts for augmenting their income to meet out the required additional funds for the pension as it was their bouden duty to increase thier annual income by generating maximum revenues by ensuring optimal production, etc on the vast infrastructure and latest technologies available with the Council.

24. That it is also relevant to state here that in the year 2016-17, serious objections were raised on the proposal submitted by the then Director of the Council and therefore, a report was sought by the Office of the Commissioner, from the In-charge Director vide Letter No.: 786/13(02)/S.V.N./Lekha/Budget/2016-17, Dated 02.02.2017. For ready reference of this Hon'ble Court the objections raised on the proposal are being reproduced hereunder:- “(क) गनቐኋ शशोध पररिषद ककी ववितቈኍय विषर 2016-17 मम आआं तररिक सशोतोሦ ससे आय कቐኋ वविविरिण उपलब्ध करिቐኋयम। (ख) सवमवत कसे सआंकल्प वदनቐኋआंक 25.03.2011 कसे ्ቅम मम शቐኋसनቐኋदसेश सआंख्यቐኋय 678 सቈኍ.डቈኍ. वदनቐኋआंक 15.04.2011 दቐኋरिቐኋ पमशन वनधध हसेततु र .500.00 लቐኋख ककी विन टቐኋइम सहቐኋयतቐኋ ्ቚदቐኋन करिनसे हसेततु धनरिቐኋवश स्विቈኍकक त ककी जቐኋ चतुककी हह, तशो ्ቚवतविषर पमशन भतुगतቐኋन हसेततु धनरिቐኋवश मቐኋआंगसे जቐኋनसे कቐኋ क्यቐኋ औवचत्य हह? (ग) स्थቐኋनቈኍय वनधध लसेखቐኋ परिቈኍकቐኋ वविभቐኋग कशो सम्परिቈኍकቐኋ शतुल्क कቐኋ भतुगतቐኋन , जब शक्करि वविशसेष वनधध मतुख्यቐኋलय दቐኋरिቐኋ वकयቐኋ जቐኋतቐኋ हह , तशो इस सम्परिቈኍकቐኋ शतुल्क कቐኋ क्यቐኋ औवचत्य हह?”

25. That despite the aforesaid, and instead of putting up a reply to the said letter, the then In-charge Director of the Council continued to send proposals contrary to the earlier approved scheme. In view of his evident acts of impropriety, an explanation had been sought by the Government on 29.04.2020 from the then In- charge Director for submitting a proposal, in contravention to the Government Order, dated 15.04.2011. It is further submitted that an appropriate action in this regard shall be taken in accordance with law, post the receipt of their replies.

26. That it is submitted that the Petitioner and the entire staff of the Council are the beneficiaries of the scheme, Including the then Director and, therefore, it is verily believed that they have connived and mischievously tried to convert the Self-Financed Pension Scheme into a Government Pension Scheme by sending repeated proposals for budgetary allocation in a deceitful and fraudulent manner. The Government had taken the serious note of the above mentioned improprieties by the concerned staff of the Council and also the concerned staff in the government. Following the principles of natural justice an enquiry was conducted, followed by departmental proceedings as per rules, and the then Director and the concerned Section Officer were duly punished.

27. That it is submitted that a meeting dated 21.05.2020 has also been held under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Department of Sugar Industry and Cane Development and the information was also collected from the Director of the Council as to why the fund under the Self finance pension scheme came in deficit. The pension payment orders of the retired employees were also produced by the Director of the Council and it was found that the same were contrary to the Government Orders, dated 25.11.2010, 11.10.2019 and 24.09.2020 and the same have not be revised in accordance with the aforesaid government orders. It was revealed that only due to this reason that the fund relating to self financed pension scheme came in deficit.”

6. Learned advocates for petitioners submit that these are subsequent events which cannot be held adverse to petitioners, being retired much prior.

7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

8. It is not disputed that Council was run by its own funds and are included under Self-Financed Pension Scheme. It is stand of the State that petitioners were entitled for pension, however, funds have to be generated by Council itself.

9. Subsequent Government Orders are not in challenge. Claim of petitioners that State shall abide by the Government Order dated 15.12.1976 and it cannot be amended subsequently does not have much substance since it does relate to financial matter and admittedly Council has no independent source of income. Otherwise, as referred, said Government Orders are not under challenge.

10. A reliance placed by learned advocates for petitioners Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (supra) that “financial constraints may not be a legal impediment as well as that any adverse amendments which prejudice case of petitioners would be hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”. However, the subsequent Government Orders are still to be tested.

11. This Court vide order dated 30.09.2010 has passed a positive interim order to grant pension on basis of Government letter dated 09.09.2010. Aforesaid interim order is still in existence and neither State nor any other respondents have challenged it before Division Bench of this Court nor have filed any application for modification.

12. Best case of respondents appears to be that they have passed subsequent Government Orders which essentially reflect financial constraints, however, as referred in Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (supra), petitioners may not be put in a prejudiced position without confronting.

13. Still, Court cannot ignore that even in such circumstances, in absence of finances, any mandamus would be difficult to follow.

14. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with following observations and directions :- (a) State-respondent as well as Uttar Pradesh Council of Sugarcane Research Institute will again look into the matter and will take all endeavour to comply the directions passed by this Court by way of above referred order dated 30.09.2010 which was passed on basis of a Government Order dated 04.09.2010. (b) Court also takes note of subsequent Government Orders dated 11.10.2019, 24.09.2020 and 28.12.2021 whereby responsibility of State has been limited. The question of its applicability i.e. proposition of retrospective cannot be decided in present case and further that petitioners will be at liberty to take recourse of legally available remedy. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 N. Sinha NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad