2017 (4) TMI 999 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Retiral benefits from post of Member Trade Tax Tribunal (UPTT) - opposite parties refused to pay the pension - The simple reason given in the impugned order is to the effect that the services are not pensionary - Held that - the appointment order was issued in the year 1998 and the advertisement was issued in the year 1997. A subsequent Government Order cannot alter the conditions of service unilaterally to the prejudice of the petitioner. Justice cannot be denied to the petitioner only because the earlier members did not approach the Court. The opposite parties are directed to pay the pension and other post retiral dues, admissible according to his salary from the date, he retired from service and continue to make the payment every month as due.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 22.6.2010 and Government Order dated 5.5.2000 regarding pension and retiral benefits.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Law Graduate, challenged the order refusing pension benefits issued by the opposite party and a subsequent Government Order. He argued that as a government servant appointed by the U.P. Public Service Commission, he was entitled to pension and retiral benefits.

2. The petitioner applied for a post in 1997 and was selected as a Member Trade Tax Tribunal. He served until superannuation in 2010. The main contention was that the advertisement did not mention the post as non-pensionable, and the appointment letter governed the conditions of service, not the advertisement.

3. The Standing Counsel defended the actions based on the advertisement and the Government Order of 2000, stating the post was non-pensionable. The petitioner argued that Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules applied, making his services pensionable.

4. The appointment order cited Section 10(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, indicating pension benefits. The petitioner contended that the Government Order of 2000 could not alter his entitlement to pension benefits retrospectively.

5. The Court found in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the Government Order should not affect his pension rights. The Court set aside the order, directing the opposite parties to pay pension and post-retiral dues as per his salary from retirement onwards.

6. The Court dismissed arguments that previous members did not receive pension benefits, stating it did not legitimize denying benefits to the petitioner. The Court referred to a previous judgment supporting the petitioner's entitlement to pension benefits.

7. In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the opposite parties to pay pension and post-retiral dues to the petitioner as per his entitlement.