Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6307 OF 2010

State of Uttar Pradesh ..Appellant

versus

Preetam Singh and others ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

J.S.KHEHAR, J.

1. The Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to  

as  the  'Vikas  Parishad')  is  a  corporate  body.   It  came  into  existence,  

consequent upon the promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas  

Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the '1965 Act').  The  

employees  of  the  Vikas  Parishad  were  members  of  a  Contributory  

Provident  Fund  Scheme.   The  Vikas  Parishad  desired  to  grant  its  

employees  better  retiral  benefits.   A  proposal  was  made,  to  extend  

pensionery benefits to the employees of the Vikas Parishad, in place of the  

existing  Contributory  Provident  Fund  Scheme.   In  furtherance  of  the  

aforesaid objective, a resolution dated 21.2.1995 was passed, proposing to  

replace  the  existing  Contributory  Provident  Fund  Scheme,  to  the  

Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme.  Before implementation of

Page 2

2

the resolution dated 21.2.1995, the Vikas Parishad considered it expedient  

to  consult  the  State  Government.    In  response  to  the  afore-mentioned  

consultation,  the  State  Government  through  a  communication  dated  

16.5.1996  approved  the  afore-stated  substitution  conditionally.   The  

conditions depicted in the aforesaid approval dated 16.5.1996,  are being  

extracted hereunder:

“Kindly refer to your letter no. 213/P-1 dated 24.4.1995 on  the aforesaid subject.  In this regard,  I have been directed  to  say  that  State  Government  has  no  objection  to  the  proposal  of  implementing  Pension/Family  Pension  &  Gratuity Scheme in place of C.P.F. Scheme in Uttar Pradesh  Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.  But subject to condition that  no  financial  assistance  will  be  given  by  the  State  Government  for  implementation of  this  Scheme and this  Scheme will be run by the Board itself from the revolving  funds created by it. “

(emphasis is ours)  

2. Consequent upon the receipt of the aforesaid approval from the State  

Government, the Vikas Parishad circulated a letter dated 9.7.1996 requiring  

its employees to submit their options, as to whether they were desirous of  

shifting to the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme, in place of the  

existing Contribution Provident Fund Scheme.

3. At the instant juncture, a very vital letter came to be issued by the  

State Government on 30.09.1997.  Relevant extract of the aforesaid letter is  

being reproduced hereunder:

“I have been directed to say that in order to implement the  subject  scheme,  it  is  not  necessary  to  initiate  any  proceedings required under Clause (c)  of  the Employees  Provident  Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act,  1952 of  the  Central  Government.   Because  Avas  Evam  Vikas  Parishad is governed by the provisions of Uttar  Pradesh

Page 3

3

Avas  Evam  Vikas  Parishad  Act,  1965  and  specific  provisions to this effect have been laid down in Section 95  of  the  said  Act,  1965  according  to  which  necessary  proceedings are to be initiated for  obtaining option from  the  employees  for  accepting  and/or  not  accepting  the  proposed Pension Scheme.”

(emphasis is ours)

A  perusal  of  the  aforesaid  letter  reveals,  that  even  though  the  State  

Government  had  granted  conditional  approval  to  the    Pension/Family  

Pension and Gratuity Scheme, through its communication dated 16.5.1996,  

the State government expressed the opinion, that the Vikas Parishad did  

not need the approval of the State Government for the implementation of  

the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme. Insofar  as the instant  

aspect of the matter is concerned, the State Government in its letter dated  

30.09.1997 clearly informed the Vikas Parishad, that it had the power to deal  

with the above issue of its own, under Section 95 of the 1965 Act.

4. Based on the conditional approval granted by the State Government  

through its communication dated 16.5.1996, and also the clarificatory letter  

issued by the State Government on 30.09.1997, the Vikas Parishad passed  

a  resolution  on  5.11.1997  approving  the  Pension/Family  Pension  and  

Gratuity Scheme.  In granting the aforesaid approval, the Vikas Parishad  

followed the pensionery scheme applicable to civil servants of the State of  

Uttar Pradesh.

5. Before  the  resolution  dated  5.11.1997  could  be  implemented,  the  

Director  General  of  Bureau  of  Public  Enterprises  addressed  a  

communication dated 19.11.1997 to the State Government, informing it, that

Page 4

4

the Vikas Parishad had not sought its approval before the implementation  

of  the   Pension/Family  Pension  and  Gratuity  Scheme.   In  sum  and  

substance, the Director General of Bureau of Public Enterprises informed  

the  State  Government,  that  the  action  taken  by  the  Vikas  Parishad  in  

implementing  the  above  scheme  without  its  approval,  was  not  in  

consonance with law.  On the receipt of the letter from the Director General  

of Bureau of Public Enterprises, the State Government by its order dated  

26.11.1997 stayed the implementation of the Pension/Family Pension and  

Gratuity Scheme.  Whilst taking the above action, the State Government  

constituted a Sub-Committee to examine the varicity and viability of the  

conversion  of  the   Contributory  Provident  Fund  Scheme  to  the  

Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme, not only with reference to  

employees of the Vikas Parishad, but with reference to employees of other  

Statutory Corporations, Development Authorities and Nigams in the State  

of Uttar Pradesh.  The aforesaid Sub-Committee, under the Chairmanship  

of the Chief Secretary of the State,  held a meeting on 3.10.1998.  In the  

above meeting, Sub-Committee arrived at the conclusion, that there was no  

justification for the implementation of the Pension Scheme in any Statutory  

Corporations,  Development  Authorities  or  Nigams  in  the  State  of  Uttar  

Pradesh.   It  was  also  the  view  of  the  Sub-Committee  that  the  existing  

Contributory  Provident  Fund  Scheme,  should  be  continued  for  all  the  

employees,  for the time being.

6. Even  though  the  above  recommendation  was  made  by  the  Sub-

Page 5

5

Committee, yet the Sub-Committee on 2.2.1999 expressed the view, that the  

aforesaid general  determination recorded in its meeting dated 3.10.1998,  

should  not  be  made  applicable  to  the  Vikas  Parishad.   Taking  into  

consideration the excellent financial condition of the Vikas Parishad, the  

Sub-Committee observed that the Vikas Parishad should be permitted to  

take steps to introduce the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme.  

It  was  however  clearly  indicated,  that  the  Pension/Family  Pension  and  

Gratuity Scheme if  introduced, for employees of the Vikas Parishad,  the  

same would not create any financial liability on the State Government.     

7. Based on the recommendations of the sub-Committee (in its meeting  

dated 2.2.1999),  the State Government passed an order dated 14.9.1999,  

withdrawing  its  ban/restriction  on  the  implementation  of  the  

Pension/Family  Pension  and  Gratuity  Scheme.   Relevant  extract  of  the  

letter dated 14.9.1999 is being reproduced below:

“In this regard, I have been directed to say that government  after  due  consideration  in  the  matter  has  decided  to  withdraw its bar/restriction imposed on the implementation  of the subject Pension Scheme for the employees of the  Board, subject to following conditions -

(1) Implementation  of  the  Pension  Scheme  in  the  Board will be completely different from the pension being  given to the employees of the State Government and this  Scheme will be developed in the form of a distinct/separate  trust  based  on  C.P.F.  and  such  a  trust  will  be  run  and  operated by a Third Party  Pension Fund Manager.   This  Pension  Scheme  shall  not  have  any  connection/relation  with the Pension Scheme of the government servants in  any  manner  whatsoever.   This  pension  scheme  will  be  completely autonomous and will  depend on the financial  condition of the Pension funds;

Page 6

6

(2) Money which will be deposited on this head/count,  will  not  be  spend  for  any  other  count/head  meaning  thereby  that  money  so  deposited  on  this  count  will  be  irreversible for any other purposes and it will be operated  by the Trust;

(3) Pension Scheme will  be maintained financially on  the  basis  of  contributions  made  by  the  Board  towards  C.P.F. and no money, apart from above, will be paid either  by the Board or by the State Government.  Please note that  if this Scheme closes down due to any reason or due to  non-availability of pension funds, then in that eventuality  neither the Government nor the Board will be responsible  for such a closure;

(4) Trust will  be fully responsible for all  the financial  and  economical  aspects  of  the  funds  of  this  Scheme,  based  upon  arrangements  made  with  the  Third  Party  Pension Fund Manager and Government/Board will not be  responsible for any loss whatsoever;

(5) Representatives  nominated  by  the  Secretary,  Housing and Secretary, Finance, will be amongst members  of the Trust which will be created for the implementation of  the Pension Scheme of the Board;

(6) Commissioner, Housing and Financial Controller of  the Board will be personally responsible for ensuring strict  compliance of the aforesaid conditions; and

(7) These  orders  are  being  issued  on  the  basis  of  consent accorded by the Finance Department vide its D.O.  No.140/99-C-Ten (1) dated 9.8.199.”

(emphasis is ours)

8. The  aforesaid  position  was  sought  to  be  endorsed  by  the  State  

Government  on  7.5.2003,  wherein  the  State  Government  reiterated  the  

position,  that  no  financial  assistance  will  be  provided  by  the  State  

Government  to  the  Vikas  Parishad  for  implementation  of  the  

Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme.

9. All of a sudden, the State Government issued yet another letter dated

Page 7

7

13.9.2005  staying  the  earlier  Government  order  dated  7.5.2003  (relevant  

extracts  wherefrom  have  been  reproduced  hereinabove).  Thereupon,  

through a further communication dated 12.7.2007,  the State government  

withdrew its approval altogether.  Through the above letter dated 12.7.2007,  

the State Government clearly informed the Vikas Parishad, that it could not  

implement  the  Pension/Family  Pension  and Gratuity  Scheme.   It  further  

informed  the  Vikas  Parishad,  that  employees  of  Public  Enterprises,  

Statutory  Corporations,  Development  Authorities  and  Nigams,  who  are  

covered by the  Employees Provident  Fund and Miscellaneous Pensions  

Act,  1952  of  the  Central  Government,  and  those  to  whom  different  

Contributory Provident Fund Schemes were already applicable, were liable  

to be  governed by the said provisions and schemes.

10. The  denial  of  permission  by  the  State  Government,  as  also,  the  

incorporations  of  the  conditions  mentioned  above,  was  sought  to  be  

assailed by the employees of the Vikas Parishad, before the High Court of  

Judicature  at  Allahabad  (Lucknow Bench)(hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  

'High Court'), by filing Writ Petition No. 582(SB) of 2000.  The aforesaid writ  

petition  was  allowed  by  the  impugned  judgment  dated  16.1.2009.   The  

orders issued by the State Government dated 13.9.2005 and 12.7.2007 were  

expressly quashed.  A writ in the nature of mandamus was issued by the  

High  Court  to  the  Vikas  Parishad,  requiring  it  to  implement  the  

Pension/Family  Pension  and  Gratuity  Scheme.   In  compliance  with  the  

aforesaid  direction,  the  Vikas  Parishad  implemented  the  Pension/Family

Page 8

8

Pension  and  Gratuity  Scheme,  through  a  notification  dated  19.5.2009.  

Relevant  extract  of  the  aforesaid  notification  is  being  reproduced  

hereunder:

“Now therefore,  the  U.P.   Avas  Evam Vikas  Parishad,  in  exercise  of  the  power  under  clause  (f),  (i)  &  (n)  of  sub- section (1)  of Section 95 of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad  Adhiniyam, 1965 (U.P. Act 1 of 1996) has decided that the  Pension/Family  Pension  and  Gratuity  admissible  to  the  officers  and  employees  of  State  Government,  which  is  governed by the following rules, schemes and Government  orders  shall  also  be  admissible  (excluding  Pension  commutation)  to  the  officers  and  employees  of  the  U.P.  Avas Evam Vikas Parishad :

1. Civil Service Regulations as applicable     As amended  in U.P. 2. Uttar Pradesh Liberalized Pension          -do- Rules, 1961. 3. U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 -do- 4. New Family Pension Scheme, 1965 -do- 5. All orders of finance department of U.P. Government asr elated to Pension/Family  Pension/Gratuity -do- 6. Newly defined Contribtory rules according -do- to notification no. Sa-3-379/das-2005-301(9)/2003 dated March 28, 2005 applicable to officers and  employees of State Govt., who have joined  services on April 01, 2005 or onwards

The  orders  with  respect  to  the  Pension/Family  Pension/Gratuity  issued  time  to  time  by  the  State  Govt.  shall also be applicable to the officers and employees of  U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.”

It  would  be  pertinent  to  mention,  that  the  aforesaid  notification  was  

expressly extended to such employees of the Vikas Parishad, who were in  

service on 1.1.1996.  The Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme in

Page 9

9

terms  of  the  aforesaid  notification,  would  be  applicable  only  till  the  

introduction of the newly defined Contributory Fund Rules framed by the  

State Government, as were applicable to employees of the Vikas Parishad  

who had entered its service w.e.f. 1.4.2005.

11. In raising a challenge to the impugned judgment rendered by the High  

Court on 16.1.2009, it was the vehement contention of the learned counsel  

for  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh,  that  the  scheme  could  not  have  been  

formulated, and given effect to in the absence of an express approval by  

the  State  Government.   Insofar  as  the  instant  contention  is  concerned,  

learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the Uttar Pradesh State  

Control  Over  Public  Corporations Act,  1975.   Our  pointed attention was  

invited to Section 2(1) thereof, which is being extracted hereunder:

“2(1) Every  statutory  body (by  whatever  name called),  established  or  constituted  under  any  Uttar  Pradesh  Act,  excepting Universities governed by the Uttar Pradesh State  Universities Act, 1973, as re-enacted and emaneded by the  Uttar  Pradesh University  (Re-enactment and Amendemnt)  Act, 1974, shall, in the discharge of its functions, be guided  by  such  directions  on  questions  of  policies,  as  may  be  given to it by the State Government, notwithstanding that  no such power has expressly been conferred on the State  Government  under  the  law  establishing  or  constituting  such statutory body.”

(emphasis is ours)

Based on the aforesaid provisions, it was the submission of the learned  

counsel  for  the  appellant,  that  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh,  through  its  

communications dated 13.9.2005 and 12.7.2007, must be deemed to have  

issued directions to the Vikas Parishad, restraining it from implementing

Page 10

10

the  Pension/Family  Pension  and  Gratuity  Scheme.   The  aforesaid  

directions,  according to the learned counsel,  were binding on the Vikas  

Parishad.

12. We have given our thoughtful  consideration to the first  contention  

advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant.  There can  

be no doubt that it is open to the State Government to issue directions of  

questions of policy to all Public Corporations in the State of Uttar Pradesh,  

in furtherance of the mandate contained in Section 2(1) of the 1975 Act.  It  

would however be pertinent to mention that the above directions could be  

issued  only  in  respect  of   questions  of  policy  having  a  nexus  to  the  

“discharge of its functions”.  Insofar as the Vikas Parishad is concerned,  

we are of the view that the functions of the Vikas parishad are relatable  

only to the functions stipulated in Section 15 of the 1965 Act. Section 15  

afore-mentioned is being reproduced hereunder:

“15. Functions  of  the  Board.  -  (1)  Subject  to  the  provisions of  this  Act  and the rules and regulations,  the  functions of the Board shall be -

a) to  frame  and  execute  housing  and  improvement  schemes and other projects.

(b) to plan and co-ordinate various housing activities  in  the  State  and  to  ensure  expeditious  and  efficient  implementation of housing and improvement schemes in  the State;

(c) to  provide  technical  advice  for  and  scrutinise  various projects under housing and improvement schemes  sponsored or assisted by Central Government or the State  Government;

(d) to  assume  management  of  such  immovable

Page 11

11

properties belonging to the State Government as may be  transferred or entrusted to it for this purpose;

(e) to maintain, use, allot, lease, or otherwise transfer  plots, buildings and other properties of the Board or of the  State  Government  placed  under  the  control  and  management of the Board.

(f)to  organise  and  run  workshops  and  stores  for  the  manufacture and stockpiling of building materials;

(g) on such terms and conditions as may be agreed  upon  between  the  Board  and  the  State  Government,  to  declare  houses  constructed  by  it  in  execution  of  any  scheme to be houses subject to the U.P. Industrial Housing  Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No.XXIII of 1955);

(h) to regulate building operations;

(i)to improve and clear slums;

(j)to provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water supply and  other  civic  amenities  and  essential  services  in  areas  developed by it;

(k) to acquire movable and immovable properties for  any of the purposes before mentioned;

(l)to  raise  loans  from  the  market,  to  obtain  grants  and  loans from the State Government, the Central Government,  local authorities and other public corporations, and to give  grants  and  loans  to  local  authorities,  other  public  corporations,  housing  co-operative  societies  and  other  persons for any of the purposes before mentioned;

(m) to  make  investigation,  examination  or  survey  of  any property or contribute towards the cost of any such  investigation,  examination  or  survey  made  by  any  local  authority or the State Government;

(N) to levy betterment fees ;

(o) to fulfill any other obligation imposed by or under  this Act or any other law for the time being in force ; and

(p) to  do all  such other  acts  and things  as  may be

Page 12

12

necessary  for  the  discharge  of  the  functions  before  mentioned.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules  and regulations, the Board may undertake, where it deems  necessary, any of the following functions, namely -

(a) to  promote  research  for  the  purpose  of  expendinting the construction of and reducing the cost of  buildings;

(b) to execute works in the State on behalf of public  institutions,  local  authorities  and  other  public  corporations, and departments of the Central Government  and the State Government;

(c) to supply and sell building materials;

(d) to  co-ordinate,  simplify  and  standardise  the  production  of  building  materials  and  to  encourage  and  organise  the  prefabrication  and  mass  production  of  structural components;

(e) with  a  view  to  facilitating  the  movement  of  the  population in and around any city, municipality, town area  or  notified  area,  to  establish,  maintain  and  operate  any  transport  service,,  to  construct,  widen,  strengthen  or  otherwise improve roads and bridges and to give financial  help to others for such purposes;

(f) to do all such other acts and things as may be necessary  for the discharge of the functions before mentioned.”

In our view, the State of Uttar Pradesh, had the right to issue directions  

only  in  respect  of  the  functions  assigned  to  the  Vikas  Parishad  under  

Section 15 of the 1965 Act. The conditions of service of employees, in our  

considered view, do not constitute the functions of the Vikas Parishad, and  

as such, we are satisfied that the directions contemplated under Section

Page 13

13

2(1) of the 1975 Act, do not extend to the directions issued by the State of  

Uttar Pradesh in the impugned orders dated 13.9.2005 and 12.7.2007. We  

therefore  find  no  merit  in  the  first  contention  advanced by  the  learned  

counsel for the appellant.

13. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, it was the vehement  

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the State of Uttar  

Pradesh is to shoulder the financial liabilities of the Vikas Parishad, in the  

event  of  its  dissolution.   Insofar  as  the  instant  aspect  of  the  matter  is  

concerned, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Section 93  

of the 1965 Act.  The said provision is being extracted hereunder:

93. Dissolution of the Board.-(1) If the State Government is  of  opinion  that  the  Boards  has  failed  to  carry  out  its  functions under this Act or that for any other reason, it is  not necessary to continue the Board, it may, by notification  in the Gazette, dissolve the Board from such date as may  be specified in the notification.

(1) Upon the publication of a notification under sub- section (1) dissolving the Board-

(a) the Adhyaksh, the Housing Commissioner and all  members  of  the  Board  shall,  as  from  the  date  of  dissolution, vacate their offices;

(b) all  the  powers  and  functions  which  may,  by  or  under this Act, be exercised  and performed by or on behalf  of the Board or the Housing Commissioner shall, as from  the date of dissolution, be exercised and performed by, and  all subsisting contracts, agreements and other instruments  to which the Board or the Housing Commissioner is a party  or  which  are  in  favour  of  the  Board  or  the  Housing  Commissioner  may  be  enforced  or  acted  upon,  and  all  suits, appeals and other legal proceedings pending by or  against the Board or the Housing Commissioner may be  contined, prosecuted or enforced, by or against the State  Government or such authority or person as it may appoint

Page 14

14

in this behalf;

(c) the  fund  of  and  other  properties  vested  in  the  Board shall vest in the State Government; and

(d) all  liabilities,  legally  subsisting  and  enforceable  against the Board, shall be enforceable against the State  Government to the extent of the fund and properties of the  Board vested in it.

(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of  the State Government in respect of debentures guaranteed  by it under sub-section (2) of Section 59.

(4) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the  foregoing provisions of this Action, the State Government  may at any time again establish a Board under Section 3  and appoint a Housing Commissioner under Section 7, and  thereupon-

(a) the powers and function as well as the rights and  liabilities  in  relation  to  contracts,  agreements  and  other  instruments,  and  suits,  appeals  and  other  legal  proceedings  referred  to  in  clause  (b)  of  sub-section  (2)  shall re-vest in the Board or the Housing Commissioner, as  the case may be ;

(b) the fund and other properties referred to in clause  (c) of sub-section (2) remaining with the State Government  after meeting any liabilities referred to in clause (d) thereof  shall re-vest in the Board.”

Having perused Section 93 of the 1965 Act,  we are satisfied, that under  

clause (d) of Section 93(1), the financial liability transferable to the State  

Government in the event of dissolution of the Board, is limited of the fund  

and properties of the Board vested in it.  In other words, the State of Uttar  

Pradesh  in  case  of  dissolution  of  the  Board,  would  only  bear  the  

responsibility of discharging the liabilities, to the extent of the properties of

Page 15

15

the Board which stand transferred to it.  Thus viewed, we are of the opinion  

that no financial liability would stand transferred to the State Government,  

even in the event of the dissolution of the Vikas Parishad.  Accordingly,  we  

find no merit even in the second contention advanced at the hands of the  

learned counsel for the appellant.

14. Despite  the  objections  raised  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant, we shall also venture to determine, whether the Vikas Parishad  

was  competent  to  frame  regulations,  whereby  it  could  extend  the  

Pension/Family  Pension and Gratuity  Scheme to  its  employees.   In  this  

behalf, it is relevant to examine Section 95 of the 1965 Act.   The aforesaid  

provision is being produced hereunder:

“Section 95. Power to make regulations.-(1)The Board may,  by notification in the  Gazette,  make regulation providing  for-

(a) the  time  and  place  of,  and  the  manner  of  convening,  the meeting of the Board and its committees  and  Avas  Samitis  and  their  postponement  and  adjournment; (b) the  procedure  and  the  conduct  of  business  at  meetings  of  the  Board  and  of  its  committees  and  Avas  Samitis; (c) the  appointment,  constitution  and  procedure  of  committees; (d) the  delegation  of  powers  by  the  Housing  Commissioner and officers of the Board; (e) the duties of officers and servants of the Board; (f)the conditions of services of officers and servants of the  Board; (g) the preparation of plans and estimates for works; (h) the preparation of budgets and estimates; (i) the  authority  on  which moneys  may be  paid  from the  Board's fund;

Page 16

16

(j) the manner of publication of public notices; (k) the  stamping  of  facsimile  of  signatures  of  the  Housing  Commissioner  and  officers  of  the  Board  on  notices, bills and other documents; (l) the fees payable for copies of documents, estimates and  plans issued by the Board; (m) the  management,  use  and  allotment  of  buildings  constructed under any housing or improvement scheme; (n) any other matter which is to be or may be provided  for by regulations under this Act or the rules. (2) If any regulations is repugnant to any rule then the  rule  whether  made  before  or  after  the  regulations  shall  prevail  and  the  regulation  shall  to  the  extent  of  the  repugnancy be void.”

A perusal  of  clause (f)  of  Section 95(1),  with clause (I)  of  Section 95(1)  

would  reveal,  that  the  Vikas  Parishad  is  vested  with  the  right  to  make  

regulations, so as to extend to its employees a scheme in the nature of  

Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme i.e., a scheme similar to the  

one  framed by the Vikas Parishad on 19.5.2009.

15. For  the  reasons  recorded  hereinabove,  we  find  no  merit   in  this  

appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

16. It is also necessary for us to determine the consequence of the State  

of  Uttar  Pradesh,  having approached this Court,  to assail  the impugned  

judgment dated 16.1.2009. This Court having entertained the petition filed  

by  the  appellant,  passed  interim  directions  on  7.8.2012,  which  had  the  

effect of staying the implementation of the directions issued by the High  

Court,  namely,  of  staying  the  implementation  of  the  notification  dated  

19.5.2009.   As  a  result,  employees  governed  by  the  notification  dated  

19.5.2009,  were  paid  their  retiral  dues  under  the  Contributory  Provident

Page 17

17

Fund Scheme.  Since we have now affirmed the impugned judgment of the  

High Court,  dated 16.1.2009, it is apparent that all the eligible employees of  

the Vikas Parishad will  be governed by the notification dated 19.5.2009.  

They will therefore be entitled to pensionery benefits from the date of their  

retirement.  Undoubtedly,  they have been denied the said retiral  benefits,  

consequent upon the interim orders passed by this Court, at the behest of  

the State of Uttar Pradesh.  In the above view of the matter, we direct the  

Vikas Parishad to release the pensionery benefits to the retired employees  

governed  by  the  notification  dated  19.5.2009,  within  three  months  from  

today.   While determining the pensionery benefits payable to the eligible  

retired employees up to date, if it is found that any of the retired employees  

is  entitled  to  financial  dues  in  excess  of  those  already  paid  under  the  

Contributory  Provident  Fund Scheme,  the  said  employee(s)  will  be  paid  

interest on the said amount at the rate of 9% per annum.  The burden of the  

aforesaid interest component on the differential amount, will be discharged  

by the Vikas Parishad, in the first instance.  The same shall, however, be  

recovered from the State of Uttar Pradesh, who is solely responsible for the  

interest ordered to be paid to the concerned employees.

….................….....................J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

NEW DELHI; …..................…....................J. SEPTEMBER 23, 2014. [ARUN MISHRA]  

Page 18

18

ITEM NO.1               COURT NO.7               SECTION XI

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).  6307/2010 GOVT. OF U.P.                                      Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS PREETAM SINGH & ORS.                               Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to  file additional documents and office report)

Date : 23/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA

For Appellant(s) Mr. P.N. Misra, Sr. Adv.                    Mr. Abhisth Kumar,Adv.                    Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, Adv.   For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.                    Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.

Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Upander Mishra, Adv.

                  M/s. Temple Law Firm,Adv.(Not present)                                 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The  appeal  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  Reportable  signed judgment, which is placed on the file.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Phoolan Wati Arora)     Court Master  Assistant Registrar