JAGDAMBA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions are employees of Statutory Corporation known as "Uttarakhand Transport Corporation" (hereinafter referred as "Corporation"). The issue before this Court is for the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the employees of Corporation from the date of its implementation etc. whereas the petitioners in WPSS No. 1465 of 2011, WPSS No. 1921 of 2013 and some of the petitioners in WPSS No. 913 of 2012 are the employees, who are presently serving the Corporation or was serving the Corporation on 01.10.2009 to whom certain benefits of 6th Pay Commission have been given by order of the State Government and the Board of the Corporation, but the actual benefits have been deferred and this is their grievance. However, in the remaining writ petitions (WPSS No. 576 of 2011, WPSS No. 1271 of 2012, 645 of 2012 and some of the petitioners in WPSS No. 913 of 2012) the petitioners are once who reached the age of superannuation and retired from services between 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009, and claimed notional benefit of the 6th Pay Commission, as is being given to the other employees.

(2.) CONSEQUENT to the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, which was in relation to the Central Government employees, the State Government also adopted these recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and made them applicable to the State Government employees as well for grant of such benefits to the employees of State Corporations and other instrumentalities of the State. The matter was referred to a committee and the committee in its report dated 17.10.2008 came to the conclusion that in case of Corporations, their balance -sheet of the last three years, and particularly, the fact as to whether such an organization is a loss making or a profit making organization (for the past three years) must be reckoned while granting such benefits. In case of the present Corporation (UTC), the Government came to the conclusion that it has been largely a loss making organization for various reasons, and therefore, though the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission was applicable in their case since 01.01.2006, however, the actual benefits were to be given to the employees only from 01.10.2009 vide order dated 15.10.2009. The employees of the Corporation in the writ petitions (WPSS No. 1465 of 2011, WPSS No. 1921 of 2013 and some of the petitioners in WPSS No. 913 of 2012) have challenged this order on the ground that once on principle, the Government has agreed to the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission to them only notionally between 01.01.2009 to 30.09.2009 is wholly incorrect and they should be given actual benefits in monitory terms for this period as well as they are being given from 01.10.2009.

(3.) THE petitioners in writ petitions (WPSS No. 576 of 2011, WPSS No. 1421 of 2012, 645 of 2012 and some of the petitioners in WPSS No. 913 of 2012) were also the employees of the Corporation, but they reached the age of superannuation between 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2010. They claimed only notional benefits of the 6th Pay Commission, as they have already retired from service, as the grant of the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission to them in monitory terms would increase their pension etc. This is their limited prayer.