Supreme Court: Relief Can Be Granted In Belated Claims For Pensionary Benefits By Restricting Arrears In Case Of Continuing Wrongs Not Impacting Third-Party Rights
The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the Judgment of the High Court which entitled the Respondents to pensionary benefits under the Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana.
Justice Abhay S Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has clarified that even though service-related claims filed after a long delay should be rejected, but if such a claim involves a continuing wrong that does not impact third-party rights, then arrears can be limited to balance equities.
The Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Respondents were held entitled to pensionary benefits under the ‘Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana’ (the Scheme). The Court upheld the decision of the High Court while further clarifying that the benefit of arrears of pension can be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of a Writ Petition.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “As a matter of principle, belated service-related claims need to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. However, where the claim relates to a continuing wrong, which does not affect the rights of third parties, equities can be balanced by restricting the arrears for the entitlement which a claimant is held to be eligible for. Normally, the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petition in the High Court for restricting the consequential relief has been resorted to regarding disbursal of arrears, which is justified.”
Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Respondents sought regular pensions on the same rates as were permissible to the permanent employees of the government contending that their service conditions were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Cane (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979 (Rules).
The Appellants on the other hand argued that the Respondents were temporary employees under the Scheme and were covered by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, and therefore, not entitled to pension.
The State Government in 1997 had decided that pensionary benefits, gratuity, and leave travel concession could be extended to the employees under the Scheme, provided all financial expenses were borne by the internal sources of the Scheme without government aid.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the respondents, although appointed under the Scheme, were governed by the fundamental statutory Rules.
The Court referred to its decision in Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of Uttaranchal (2004), wherein was held that the employee would be entitled to continue till the age of 60 years in light of the order of the Cane Commissioner which entitled the employees appointed under the Scheme to the same benefits as the government employees in the absence of any separate rules.
“Dealing with the distinction which is being sought to be pleaded by the appellant with reference to the nonapplicability of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Goel (supra) is that he was an employee of the State of Uttarakhand with State of Uttar Pradesh not being a party thereto the said judgment would not be binding upon the State. This plea of the appellant, at the first blush, may appear to be attractive, but the fact is that at the time of appointment, under the Scheme till the year 2000 when the State of Uttarakhand was carved out of the State of Uttar Pradesh, he continued to be governed by the rules and regulations framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. There has been no changes brought about by the State of Uttarakhand in the said rules/regulations, other than as has been taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “In light of the above, the appeal stands dismissed except for holding the respondents entitled to arrears of pension for a period of three years prior to the date of the filing of their Writ Petition or the date of attaining the age 60 years whichever is earlier for the relief as granted by the High Court.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 370)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal; AOR Rohit K. Singh; Advocates Uday Nath Tiwari and Pritam Bishwas
Respondents: Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia; AOR S.K. Verma; Advocates Chandra Shekhar, Prashant Shekhar, Ashwani Saini and Sandhya Gupta