High Court · 2025

Appellant :- Geeta Devi Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,Adarsh Bhushan,C.S.C.,Suyash Agarwal Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. This special appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.15438 of 2024, whereby grievance raised by the appellant in respect of denial of family pension is rejected relying upon a previous adjudication made in Writ-A No.13078 of 2018 decided on 28.8.2024. The judgment in Writ-A No.13078 of 2018 has been affirmed in Special Appeal Defective No.199 of 2025, vide following orders passed on 10.3.2025:- "In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2025

1. Appeal has been filed with a delay of 151 days.

2. Cause shown is sufficient.

3. Application is allowed.

4. Delay is condoned. Order on Appeal Learned Single Judge has rejected the appellants claim for pension on the ground that their services got regularized in 2003 by when the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was already enforced in respect of separate corporations created after the U.P. State Electricity Board was dis-continued. The re-constitution was made as per the provisions of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. On behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that the provisions of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 ceased to exist and since the circular of the department was not under challenge, which made the CPF applicable on the date of regularization, as such no relief can be granted. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 23(7) of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 in order to submit that the previous services could not have been ignored and that the benefit of services rendered before the transfer was required to be taken note of. Learned Single Judge has noticed the import of the Reforms Act, 1999 and relying upon the division bench judgment of this Court in Rajiv Kumar Johari Vs State of U.P. and others 2007 (2) AWC 1726 categorically held that the provisions of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 would not be applicable upon the case of the appellants. We may also note that the regularization orders were passed in favour of the appellants in 2003. The regularization order in the case of first petitioner before the learned Single Judge i.e. Moti Chand, itself records that the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 as well as other pension rules will not be applicable and the employees would be entitled only to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It is also admitted that after the retirement of these persons they receive benefit under the C.P.F. Rules. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellants cannot now be permitted to contend that they are to be treated akin to State Government employees and that services prior to his regularization is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pension. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced we find that the circular issued by the respondent clearly make the provisions of 1961 Retirement Rules inapplicable and enforce the provisions of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme vide Circular of 2002 which has attained finality. No challenge was otherwise made to the circular in that regard. The appellants have also acquiesced to such provision and have availed its benefit. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants after holding that the circular having been enforced in the corporation its effect cannot be evaded nor a better scheme can be claimed once the appellants have acquiesced to it. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed."

2.Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the husband of the appellant was continuing as a daily wager in the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board. U.P. State Electricity Board came to be dissolved and bifurcated into three different corporations w.e.f. 14.1.2000. On 14.1.2000 the appellant's husband was a daily wager in U.P. State Electricity Board. His services came to be regularized on 11.12.2000. This regularization was pursuant to an examination held on 28.11.1999. The respondents have applied C.P.F. scheme to the three corporations created on 14.1.2000 w.e.f. 14.1.2000 vide office memorandum dated 6.6.2003. The submission of Sri Khare is that the circular of 6.6.2003 is non-statutory in nature and since the C.P.F. scheme was made applicable with a retrospective effect w.e.f 14.1.2000, therefore, the rights created in the employees till 6.6.2003 cannot be retrospectively eliminated. It is urged that on the date of regularization of the appellant's husband old pension scheme was applicable and, therefore, the respondents have illegally denied the benefit of old pension scheme to her husband as well as family pension to the appellant herself.

3. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the deceased employee ever since his regularization was covered under the C.P.F. scheme which subsequently came to be regulated by the Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 2004. It is specifically stated that C.P.F. contribution was deducted from the salary of the deceased employee right from the date of his initial regularization till he died in the year 2022 and no objection was ever raised by him with regard to applicability of C.P.F. scheme upon him. It is also urged that no grievance was otherwise raised by the deceased employee with regard to denial of pension under the old pension scheme. It is, therefore, submitted that after several decades it would not be open for the widow of the deceased employee to assert that 22 years back her husband was wrongly included in the C.P.F. scheme and that he ought to have been extended the benefit of old pension scheme.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the stand taken by the respondents, inasmuch as the deceased employee once was covered under the C.P.F. scheme and no objection was taken by him for 22 years it would not be open for the widow of the deceased employee to raise a grievance with regard to inclusion of her husband under the C.P.F. scheme 22 years back.

5. For the reasons recorded in the Special Appeal Defective No.199 of 2025, as also in view of the fact that the deceased employee never challenged his inclusion in C.P.F. scheme and such a grievance otherwise would not be permissible to be raised by the widow on behalf of her husband after 22 years, this special appeal is consigned to records. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 RA RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Geeta Devi Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,Adarsh Bhushan,C.S.C.,Suyash Agarwal Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. This special appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.15438 of 2024, whereby grievance raised by the appellant in respect of denial of family pension is rejected relying upon a previous adjudication made in Writ-A No.13078 of 2018 decided on 28.8.2024. The judgment in Writ-A No.13078 of 2018 has been affirmed in Special Appeal Defective No.199 of 2025, vide following orders passed on 10.3.2025:- "In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2025

1. Appeal has been filed with a delay of 151 days.

2. Cause shown is sufficient.

3. Application is allowed.

4. Delay is condoned. Order on Appeal Learned Single Judge has rejected the appellants claim for pension on the ground that their services got regularized in 2003 by when the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was already enforced in respect of separate corporations created after the U.P. State Electricity Board was dis-continued. The re-constitution was made as per the provisions of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. On behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that the provisions of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 ceased to exist and since the circular of the department was not under challenge, which made the CPF applicable on the date of regularization, as such no relief can be granted. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 23(7) of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 in order to submit that the previous services could not have been ignored and that the benefit of services rendered before the transfer was required to be taken note of. Learned Single Judge has noticed the import of the Reforms Act, 1999 and relying upon the division bench judgment of this Court in Rajiv Kumar Johari Vs State of U.P. and others 2007 (2) AWC 1726 categorically held that the provisions of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 would not be applicable upon the case of the appellants. We may also note that the regularization orders were passed in favour of the appellants in 2003. The regularization order in the case of first petitioner before the learned Single Judge i.e. Moti Chand, itself records that the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 as well as other pension rules will not be applicable and the employees would be entitled only to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It is also admitted that after the retirement of these persons they receive benefit under the C.P.F. Rules. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellants cannot now be permitted to contend that they are to be treated akin to State Government employees and that services prior to his regularization is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pension. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced we find that the circular issued by the respondent clearly make the provisions of 1961 Retirement Rules inapplicable and enforce the provisions of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme vide Circular of 2002 which has attained finality. No challenge was otherwise made to the circular in that regard. The appellants have also acquiesced to such provision and have availed its benefit. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants after holding that the circular having been enforced in the corporation its effect cannot be evaded nor a better scheme can be claimed once the appellants have acquiesced to it. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed."

2.Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the husband of the appellant was continuing as a daily wager in the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board. U.P. State Electricity Board came to be dissolved and bifurcated into three different corporations w.e.f. 14.1.2000. On 14.1.2000 the appellant's husband was a daily wager in U.P. State Electricity Board. His services came to be regularized on 11.12.2000. This regularization was pursuant to an examination held on 28.11.1999. The respondents have applied C.P.F. scheme to the three corporations created on 14.1.2000 w.e.f. 14.1.2000 vide office memorandum dated 6.6.2003. The submission of Sri Khare is that the circular of 6.6.2003 is non-statutory in nature and since the C.P.F. scheme was made applicable with a retrospective effect w.e.f 14.1.2000, therefore, the rights created in the employees till 6.6.2003 cannot be retrospectively eliminated. It is urged that on the date of regularization of the appellant's husband old pension scheme was applicable and, therefore, the respondents have illegally denied the benefit of old pension scheme to her husband as well as family pension to the appellant herself.

3. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the deceased employee ever since his regularization was covered under the C.P.F. scheme which subsequently came to be regulated by the Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 2004. It is specifically stated that C.P.F. contribution was deducted from the salary of the deceased employee right from the date of his initial regularization till he died in the year 2022 and no objection was ever raised by him with regard to applicability of C.P.F. scheme upon him. It is also urged that no grievance was otherwise raised by the deceased employee with regard to denial of pension under the old pension scheme. It is, therefore, submitted that after several decades it would not be open for the widow of the deceased employee to assert that 22 years back her husband was wrongly included in the C.P.F. scheme and that he ought to have been extended the benefit of old pension scheme.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the stand taken by the respondents, inasmuch as the deceased employee once was covered under the C.P.F. scheme and no objection was taken by him for 22 years it would not be open for the widow of the deceased employee to raise a grievance with regard to inclusion of her husband under the C.P.F. scheme 22 years back.

5. For the reasons recorded in the Special Appeal Defective No.199 of 2025, as also in view of the fact that the deceased employee never challenged his inclusion in C.P.F. scheme and such a grievance otherwise would not be permissible to be raised by the widow on behalf of her husband after 22 years, this special appeal is consigned to records. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 RA RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad