Supreme Court of India· 26 July 2024

Is a High Court judgment given without noticing the governing Government Orders a binding precedent?

UP ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 894 OF 2020 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 894 OF 2020
Coram: Prashant Kumar Mishra; Hrishikesh Roy

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Art. 350 U.P. Civil Service Regu…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. A judgment rendered without any reference to the Government Orders dated 16.09.1960 and 28.10.1960, or to Note 3 of Article 350 of the Regulations and the Service Regulations, 1981, cannot be relied upon as binding precedent and is of no assistance.

Headnote

U.P. Civil Service Regulations - Art. 350, Note 3 - Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - s.3 - s.45(2)(c) - Pension - Pensionable post - Provident Fund Scheme - Approbation and reprobation - U.P. Civil Service Regulations - Art. 350 - Pension claimable only under a rule or scheme - Held: Pension is a right and not a bounty, but it can be claimed only where the relevant rules or a scheme permit it. An employee covered by the Provident Fund Scheme who holds no pensionable post cannot obtain a mandamus for pension. (¶35) U.P. Civil Service Regulations - Art. 350, Note 3 - Non-gazetted posts in technical institutions - Held further: Service in non-gazetted posts in Government Technical and Industrial Institutions in Uttar Pradesh does not qualify for pension and is covered by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Note 3 survived the amendment to Article 350. (¶22, 29) Employees Provident Fund Scheme - Retiral benefits already drawn - Approbate and reprobate - Held further: A party to the litigation cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate after receiving its entire post-retiral benefits without protest. Contributory provident fund retirees form a different class and cannot switch over to the Pension Scheme as of right. (¶30, 31) Precedent - Judgment rendered without reference to the governing Government Orders - Held further: A decision rendered without any reference to the applicable Government Orders and to Note 3 of Article 350 cannot be relied upon as binding precedent. Appeal of the retired employees dismissed and the Corporation's appeals allowed. (¶39, 51)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 39True it is that Shri Narain Pandey was granted pension by the High Court despite he having been appointed on the post of Junior Station Incharge on 05.05.1978. However, this judgment was rendered without any reference to GOs dated 16.09.1960 and 28.10.1960 as also Note 3 of Article 350 of the Regulations and the provisions of the Service Regulations, 1981. This judgment, therefore, cannot be relied upon as binding precedent as the same has been rendered without referring to the applicable GOs and Regulations.

Paragraph 40In view of the above discussion, the appellant’s reliance on the judgments rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Mirza Athar Beg (supra), S.M. Fazil & 03 others (supra) and Shri Narain Pandey (supra) are misplaced as in the said matters, the respective appellants were found to be holding permanent posts which were pensionable whereas in the present case, the appellants were neither holding permanent posts nor holding any pensionable posts as per GO dated 28.10.1960. Therefore, judgments in the matter Mirza Athar Beg (supra), S.M. Fazil & 03 others (supra) and Shri Narain Pandey (supra) rendered by the High Court are distinguishable on facts. The judgment in Shri Narain Pandey (supra) has not considered the legal effect flowing from the GO dated 16.09.1960 and 28.10.1960 as also Note 3 of Article 350 of the Regulations. Therefore, the said judgment of the Allahabad High Court is of no assistance to the appellants.

Acts & Sections

Art. 350 U.P. Civil Service Regulationss.3 Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950s.45(2)(c) Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950Regulation 39 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of UP ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can an employee under the Provident Fund Scheme claim pension without holding a pensionable post?Can retired employees who drew Provident Fund benefits later claim pension instead?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections