Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Kumar Verma And 26 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy ... on 24 May, 2022
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3108 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Verma And 26 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Singh,Manushresth Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Patel Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State and Shri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the parties agree that the issue involved herein has already been decided in Writ Petition No. 922 (S/S) of 2021 which has been allowed on 13.01.2021. Based on the said judgment a similar writ petition bearing Writ - A No. 2421 of 2022 has been decided on 28.04.2022 in the following terms:-
"Heard.
The petitioners herein are seeking service benefits in the form of one additional annual increment and second promotional pay-scale on completion of 19 and 24 years of service in the P.C.D.F. This issue has already been thrashed out in two rounds of litigation undertaken earlier by the employees viz.-a-viz. the opposite parties. Although the judgments are annexed with the writ petition, when the payments were not made, contempt proceedings were initiated wherein certain orders were passed against which special leave petition was filed, which has been dismissed on 22.4.2022. Thereafter another writ petition was filed by similarly situated persons bearing no. 922 (SS) of 2021 which has been allowed on 13.1.2021 in the following terms-
"Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 and 4 and Mr. Pankaj Patel, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
Petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(I.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to make payment of full amount of arrear of difference of salary along with interest accrued thereon to the petitioners because of the benefit of selection grade of one special increment on completion of 19 years of continuous satisfactory services and benefit of second promotional pay scale on completion of 24 years of continuous satisfactory services in pursuance of the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Opposite party no.3 contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition forthwith.
(II.) Issue such other suitable order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(III.) Allow the writ petition with cost."
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners 1 to 51 are Class III employees and retired from service on different posts of PCDF, Lucknow and petitioners 52 and 53 are currently working on different Class III posts in PCDF, Lucknow but when their posts retiral benefits and payment of full amount of arrears of difference of salary along with interest were not provided to them, the petitioners were constrained to file a writ petition before this court. It is submitted that petitioners had filed writ petition no. 4931 of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 20th February, 2020 directing the opposite parties to decide petitioners' representation. It is submitted that when representation was not decided, the petitioners had to file contempt petition No. 817 of 2020 in which notices were issued whereafter certain payments were made to the petitioners, which were disputed by petitioners leading to filing of writ petition no. 14050 (S/S) of 2020 in which again a direction was issued on 28th August, 2020 for deciding the representation of petitioners.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that thereafter the opposite parties have issued the order dated 31st October, 2020 admitting their liability towards payment of post retiral benefits of petitioners but at the same time had indicated a condition that due to the precarious financial condition of the corporation, payment to petitioners would be made in future whenever the funds are available. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the amount of outstanding dues as indicated vide order dated 31st October, 2020 are admitted to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the pensionary benefits of an employee like the petitioners are not a bounty to be distributed at the sweet will of the employer and that the petitioners have a vested right to be paid their pensionary benefits within a reasonable time from the date of superannuation.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has reiterated the fact that while the corporation admits its liability towards payment of pensionary benefits of petitioners, the same can not be paid instantly in view of precarious financial condition of the corporation whenever the funds are available with corporation.
Considering the material on record and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent the the opposite parties do not deny their liability for making payments of pensionary benefits to petitioner. Precarious financial condition of a corporation can not be a ground to delay payment of pensionary benefits that are due to superannuated employee. It is settled law in the case of D.S. Nakara versus Union of India reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court Cases 130 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has already held that pensionary benefits are not a bounty to be distributed at the sweet will of the employer. Similarly in the case of Kapila Hingorani versus State of Bihar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has already held that the precarious financial condition of the employer is not a valid ground for delaying or not making payment of pensionary benefits of a superannuated employee in which it has been held as under:-
" Financial stringency may not be a ground for not issuing requisite directions when a question of violation of fundamental right arises. This Court has been highlighting this aspect in the matters concerning fundamental rights and maintenance of ecology. See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.. AIR (1987) SC 359 = [1986] Supp. SCC 517, Ratlam Municipality v. Vardi Chand, [1980] 4 SCC 162 and B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India, AIR (1996) SC 2969."
A perusal of the impugned order also does not indicate any time frame to which the opposite parties admit to adhere for making payments of pensionary benefits to petitioners. Such a blank cheque can not be issued by the employer to itself with regard to making payment of pensionary benefits. As such a condition indicated in the order dated 31st October, 2020 is clearly unsustainable.
Learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Patel, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.2 and 3 submits that the federation has sent requisition to the State Government seeking grant/loan in order to provide benefits to its employees as directed by the Court although learned counsel for petitioners submits that such a requisition is irrelevant in view of the fact that the same contention has already been rejected earlier by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the opposite parties are directed to make payment of the outstanding pensionary benefits of the petitioners as indicated in the order dated 31st October, 2020 within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is produced. Grant of interest to the petitioners shall also be considered by the opposite parties within the same time period and if found eligible, the petitioners shall be paid the same along with the pensionary benefits.
Consequently, writ petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself."
Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for P.C.D.F. does not dispute the fact that the petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners of writ petition No. 922 (SS) of 2021. He also says that there is no dispute about the entitlement of the petitioners to the service benefits claimed, but P.C.D.F. is facing financial crunch and that is why on 11.4.2022 it has sought a loan of Rs. 82.61 crores for payment of the service benefits, i.e., the annual increment and second promotional pay-scale on completion of 19 and 24 years of service. As soon as the loan becomes available, payment shall be made to the petitioners.
Sri Rakesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the State says that if the petitioners have a promotional avenue, then promotional scale would be payable otherwise the next pay-scale would be payable.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed off on the same terms as in the judgment dated 13.1.2021 quoted hereinabove, as corrected on 18.6.2021 and 3.9.2021. Whether promotional-scale or the next pay-scale would be payable is a matter to be seen in the light of the relevant policy. The court need not comment at this stage."
In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 28.04.2022, meaning thereby, petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid judgment on the same terms and the opposite parties shall be obliged to consider the matter accordingly.
(Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 24.5.2022 R.K.P.