Up State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sushila Pant - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- mining direction to state government to consider all applications afresh in light of interpretation of section 11 of the act and rules 35, 59 and 60 of mc rules main issue : whether the state government's recommendation dated 06.12.2004 and the proceedings of the chief minister are contrary to the provisions of section 11 of the act and rules 59 and 60 of mc rules and not valid in law. a perusal of the proceedings of the chief minister shows that no clear reasons were given to show as to why jindal and kalyani were preferred over other applicants.[para 18]--the proceedings of the chief minister, at no level, consider the various guiding criteria mentioned in section 11(3)[para 19] b) whether the respondent-jindal's application dated 24.10.2002 made prior to the notification dated..........necessary to notice, that consequent upon the creation of the up state road transport corporation, brij mohan pant was absorbed by the up state road transport corporation.3. a perusal of the office order dated 28.02.1984 (extracted herein above) leaves no room for any doubt, that brij mohan pant was working against a pensionable post. the afore-stated brij mohan pant, however, died on 27.12.1999 in harness. after his death, his widow sushila pant claimed all monetary benefits due to her husband, including family pension payable to her on account of the services rendered by her husband. in order to substantiate her claim for family pension, sushila pant relied on the office order dated 28.02.1984 (extracted herein above).4. since the claim of sushila pant for family pension was not being.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Sri Brij Mohan Pant S/o Sri Govind Ballabh Pant temporary incumbent of UP Govt. Roadways, Tanakpur Region working in on the pensionable post of Asstt. Cashier in the scale of pay Rs. 100-4- 120-88-5-170-88-6-180 w.e.f. 1.4.1972 against the permanent post sanctioned by the Govt. G.C. No. 100-XXX-2-608 N/72 dated 5.2. 1973.

Regional Manager,

UP State Road Transport Corporation,

Pithoragarh.

2. At this juncture, it would also be necessary to notice, that consequent upon the creation of the UP State Road Transport Corporation, Brij Mohan Pant was absorbed by the UP State Road Transport Corporation.

3. A perusal of the Office Order dated 28.02.1984 (extracted herein above) leaves no room for any doubt, that Brij Mohan Pant was working against a pensionable post. The afore-stated Brij Mohan Pant, however, died on 27.12.1999 in harness. After his death, his widow Sushila Pant claimed all monetary benefits due to her husband, including family pension payable to her on account of the services rendered by her husband. In order to substantiate her claim for family pension, Sushila Pant relied on the Office Order dated 28.02.1984 (extracted herein above).

4. Since the claim of Sushila Pant for family pension was not being acceded to, she approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/B) No. 632 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 02.09.2004. Based on the Office Order dated 28.02.1984, Sushila Pant was held to be entitled to family pension.

5. The order dated 02.09.2004 passed by this Court, disposing of Writ Petition (M/B) No. 632 of 2002, has been assailed by the UP State Road Transport Corporation through the present Special Appeal.

6. During the course of hearing, the solitary contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is based on an order dated 08.01.2003, which was passed by the Regional Manager, UP State Road Transport Corporation, Tanakpur, canceling the earlier Office Order dated 28.02.1984. It is, therefore, the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the basis on which the respondent has claimed family pension, having itself been set aside, there was no question of release of family pension to her.

7. We have considered the aforesaid solitary contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. During the course of employment of Brij Mohan Pant, the Office Order dated 28.02.1984 remained unaltered till his death on 27.12.1999. Undoubtedly, the Office Order dated 28.02.1984 vested valuable rights in Brij Mohan Pant. After the death of the aforesaid Brij Mohan Pant, the aforesaid valuable rights resulted in certain monetary benefits to his wife Sushila Pant (the respondent herein). The aforesaid Office Order dated 28.02.1984 could not have been revoked unilaterally, as the same had adverse civil consequences, firstly, as against Brij Mohan Pant during his lifetime, and thereafter, against his legal heirs, specially the respondent Sushila Pant, who was entitled to family pension based on the aforesaid Office Order. Although it was open to the respondents to revoke the Office Order dated 28.02.1984, however, the same was not permissible without following the rules of natural justice. The Office Order dated 28.02.1984 was admittedly revoked by the appellant three years after his death (on 27.12.1999) by an order dated 08.01.2003. Not only that, the order dated 08.01.2003 was passed after the respondent filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 632 of 2002 in this Court. It was obviously an afterthought to deprive the widow of Brij Mohan Pant, of family pension. Admittedly, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, neither any notice was issued to Brij Mohan Pant or his widow Sushila Pant, informing him or her the reasons for revoking the earlier Office Order dated 28.02.1984, nor was any opportunity to dispute the action sought to be taken by the authorities afforded.

8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the order dated 08.01.2003, revoking the Office Order dated 28.02.1984, was issued in clear violation of the rules of natural justice, and as such, was passed arbitrarily and in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid order justifiably cannot stand the scrutiny of law and was, therefore, appropriately set aside by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Writ Petition (M/B) No. 632 of 2002. We affirm the aforesaid determination of the learned Single Judge.

9. With the setting aside of the order dated 08.01.2003, the Office Order dated 28.02.1984 revives. The Office Order dated 28.02.1984 has been extracted herein above. The same clearly records, that Brij Mohan Pant was holding a pensionable post. That being the factual position, as it stands at the present juncture, there can be no room for any doubt, that after the death of Brij Mohan Pant, his widow Sushila Pant would be entitled to family pension.

10. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant Special Appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 632 of 2002 dated 02.09.2004 is hereby affirmed.