Pension entitlement for tribunal member upheld despite later government order changing the post to non-pensionable.

The petitioner, appointed as a Member of the Trade Tax Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, was treated as a Government servant for service-rule purposes, and Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules applied to his appointment. On that basis, the service framework entitled him to retiring pension and other post-retiral benefits under Rule 56(e). A later Government Order declaring the post non-pensionable could not retrospectively alter the service conditions of a person already appointed in 1998, and the fact that earlier incumbents had not challenged similar denial did not validate the refusal. The HC held that pension and retiral dues were payable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, appointed as a Member of the Trade Tax Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, was entitled to pension and other retiral benefits despite a subsequent Government Order declaring the post non-pensionable.

Analysis: The appointment order was traced to Section 10(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, under which Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules was made applicable to members of the Tribunal as to any other Government servant. The petitioner was treated as a Government servant within the meaning of the service rules, and Rule 56(e) provided for a retiring pension and other retirement benefits in accordance with the relevant rules. The later Government Order of 5.5.2000 could not retrospectively alter the conditions of service of a person already appointed in 1998. The fact that earlier incumbents had not challenged the denial of benefits did not legalise the denial in the petitioner's case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to pension and post-retiral dues, and the refusal to grant such benefits was unsustainable.

---