Court dismisses writ petition challenging exclusion of service with Auto Tractors Limited for pension, citing retirement benefit rules.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's claim to count services with Auto Tractors Limited (A.T.L.) for pensionary purposes. It was held that the services with A.T.L. were not pensionable under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and Civil Services Regulations. The court emphasized that the rules governing absorption of retrenched employees did not extend to counting non-pensionable service periods for pension calculations. The petitioner's reliance on a previous judgment was deemed irrelevant, and the government orders examined did not support the petitioner's claim. The writ petition was dismissed for lacking legal and factual basis.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order dated 21.1.2016 by the Principal Secretary rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
2. Counting of services rendered with Auto Tractors Limited (A.T.L.) for pensionary purposes.
3. Applicability of U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules 1991.
4. Protection of last pay drawn.
5. Applicability of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and Civil Services Regulations.
6. Reliance on the judgment in Hridesh Dayal Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors.
7. Government orders dated 10.7.1998 and 28.12.2001.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Order Dated 21.1.2016:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.1.2016 by the Principal Secretary, which rejected the petitioner’s claim for counting the services rendered with Auto Tractors Limited (A.T.L.) for pensionary purposes. The court examined the legal and factual basis of the Principal Secretary's decision and found it consistent with the applicable rules and regulations.

2. Counting of Services with A.T.L. for Pensionary Purposes:
The petitioner was employed with A.T.L. from 24.10.1980 to 20.11.1990. After A.T.L. closed, the petitioner was absorbed into the Entertainment Tax Department of the Government of U.P. on 19.2.1996. The petitioner sought to have his service period with A.T.L. counted towards his pension. However, the court found that the services rendered in A.T.L. were not pensionable and did not qualify for counting under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and Civil Services Regulations.

3. Applicability of U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules 1991:
The petitioner was absorbed under the Rules of 1991, which did not provide for the inclusion of services rendered in A.T.L. for pensionary benefits. The court emphasized that these rules govern the absorption process but do not extend to counting non-pensionable service periods for pension calculations.

4. Protection of Last Pay Drawn:
The petitioner had earlier sought protection of his last pay drawn at A.T.L., which was granted by an order dated 11.10.2007. However, this protection did not extend to counting the A.T.L. service period for pensionary benefits.

5. Applicability of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and Civil Services Regulations:
The court analyzed Rule 3(8) of the Rules of 1961, which defines "qualifying service" for pension purposes. It concluded that only service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh qualifies, excluding non-pensionable service such as that rendered in A.T.L. Regulation 361 of the Civil Services Regulations further supported this interpretation, requiring government service for pension eligibility.

6. Reliance on the Judgment in Hridesh Dayal Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors.:
The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where past services were considered for pay fixation but not for pension calculation. The court clarified that the Division Bench in Hridesh Dayal Srivastava did not address the issue of counting past service for pension benefits. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the S.L.P. in that case left the question of law open, and thus, it did not serve as a binding precedent for the petitioner's claim.

7. Government Orders Dated 10.7.1998 and 28.12.2001:
The court examined these government orders, which pertain to counting service periods for pension when employees move between central and state government or autonomous bodies. The petitioner did not fall under these categories, and there was no evidence that A.T.L. was an autonomous body or that its services were pensionable. The government order dated 28.12.2001 clarified that the earlier order applied only to autonomous bodies, not corporations or undertakings like A.T.L.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner’s claim lacked factual and legal basis. The services rendered in A.T.L. were not pensionable, and the relevant rules and regulations did not support counting this period for pensionary benefits. The writ petition was dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Principal Secretary, Finance/Institutional Finance.

---