Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Others vs Dan Singh Surya & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is preferred by the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S)

No.1275 of 2017 dated 20.07.2018, whereby the Writ Petition was allowed.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the respondents-writ petitioners are all retired employees of the appellants-Corporation; they retired

from service during the period 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009; by Government Orders dated 15.10.2009 and 02.02.2010, the benefits of the 6th Pay

Commission was extended to the employees of the Corporation, subject to the condition that their pay shall be fixed notionally with effect from

01.01.2006, and actual monetary benefit shall be paid with effect from 01.10.2009.

Aggrieved thereby, some of the employees, seeking actual payment of the 6th Pay Commission pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006, invoked the jurisdiction

of this Court in Writ Petition No.576 of 2011 and batch; the respondents-writ petitioners herein had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ

Petition (S/S) No.645 of 2012; by way of a common order passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.576 of 2011 and batch [which included Writ Petition (S/S)

No.645 of 2012] dated 07.07.2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring to Sections 23 and 24 of the Road Transport Corporation Act,

1950, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu: (2013) 2 SCC 775, opined

that financial constraints of the Corporations were relevant while giving the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission to its employees; there was no

anomaly in the orders dated 15.10.2009 and 02.02.2010; and the writ petitioners-employees’ claim for payment of 6th Pay Commission pay-scales

from 01.01.2006 was dismissed. With regards those employees who had retired from service between 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009, who were only given

notional benefit for computation of their retiral benefits, the learned Single Judge noted that there was a recommendation of the Managing Director

that such benefits (notional benefit) be extended to the retired employees. Consequently, a mandamus was issued to the respondents therein

(appellants herein) to give notional benefit to the retired employees as were given to other employees.

Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would submit that the order passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.645 of 2012,

whereby retired employees were extended notional benefits of the 6th Pay Commission pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and were granted revised retiral

benefits from 01.10.2009, has attained finality since no appeal has been preferred thereagainst. Though notional fitment was given to them, the retiral

benefits due and payable in terms of the notional fitment was not released in their favour, and as such the respondents-writ petitioners again invoked

the jurisdiction of this Court by way of Writ Petition (S/S) No.1275 of 2017.

The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by its order dated 20.07.2018 and directed the appellants herein to fix pay of the respondents-

writ petitioner notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and to grant revised pension from 01.10.2009 and pay them arrears of revised pension after 01.10.2009,

within three months from the date of the order.

As employees of the appellants-Corporation were not entitled to revised pension since pensionary benefits are not extended to the employees of the

Corporation, an application was filed by the respondents-writ petitioners seeking correction of the order under appeal and by order in MCC No.1154

of 2018 in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1275 of 2017 dated 30.08.2018, the learned Single Judge allowed the correction application and directed the word

“revised pensionâ€​ be substituted with “revised retiral benefitsâ€​. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants-Corporation, would submit that the

financial condition of the Corporation is so acute that they are in no position to pay the retiral benefits to the respondents-writ petitioners in the light of

the revised 6th Pay Commission pay-scales and that the earlier order in Writ Petition (S/S) No.645 of 2012 dated 07.07.2014 was only for notional

fitment and not for actual payment of retiral benefits.

This submission urged on behalf of the appellants is only to be noted to be rejected. The very object of notional fitment of those employees who

retired between 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009 in the 6th Pay Commission pay-scales is to revise their pay-scale notionally in terms of the 6th Pay

Commission i.e. they would not be entitled for the arrears of pay in terms of the 6th Pay Commission pay-scale from 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009. All

employees included retired employees would, however, be entitled to notional fitments for the sense that while pay would be revised in terms of the

6th Pay Commission pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 onwards, shall be extended the revised pay-scale from 01.10.2009 and not prior thereto.

It is not in dispute that the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.645 of 2012 dated 07.07.2014 has attained finality. The

learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in directing the appellants-Corporation to make payment of the retiral dues of the respondents-writ

petitioners in terms of the 6th Pay Commission pay-scales w.e.f. 01.10.2009.

We find no error in the order under appeal necessitating interference. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.