//
you're reading...
legal issues

Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – resolution dated 21.2.1995 was passed, proposing to replace the existing Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, to the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme. – Govt. Objections – Apex court held that 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. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 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.= CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6307 OF 2010 State of Uttar Pradesh ..Appellant versus Preetam Singh and others ..Respondents = 2014 – Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=42000

Uttar  Pradesh  Avas  Evam  Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – resolution dated 21.2.1995 was passed, proposing  to  replace  the  existing Contributory Provident  Fund  Scheme,  to  the  Pension/Family  Pension  and Gratuity Scheme.  – Govt. Objections – Apex court held that 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. For the reasons recorded  hereinabove,  we  find  no  merit   in  this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 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.=

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.  – Govt. Objections =

“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;

(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

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.

 

2014 – Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=42000

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 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 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  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-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;

(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

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  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

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  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  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  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

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 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 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;

(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

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]

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

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,704,216 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,852 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com