B D BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a retired employee of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the "UPSRTC"). He has made this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to release the pension of the petitioner and decide his representation for the same. By way of amendment a further relief has been sought for quashing of the order dated 22nd August, 2006 passed by the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Moradabad, whereby representation of the petitioner for pension has been rejected.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner reached his age of superannuation on 31st October, 1999 and retired from the post of Traffic Superintendent, UPSRTC, Moradabad Region, Moradabad. It is stated that after retirement the petitioner made a representation to the Manager (Pension), Transport Corporation, U.P. Lucknow, who vide his order dated 22nd October, 2001 directed the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Moradabad, the respondent no. 4, to pass appropriate order in terms of the Government Order dated 02nd June, 1999. A copy of the said order/communication dated 22nd October, 2001 is on the record as annexure -1 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the said direction, the respondent no. 4 submitted the relevant papers to the respondent no. 2 i.e. Director, Pension Directorate, Lucknow, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.1,67,609/ - towards contribution of the employer in the Employees Provident Fund (for short, the "EPF") and the gratuity. It is stated that in spite of the said letter, the petitioner was not paid his pensionary benefits and, on the other hand, the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Moradabad vide impugned order dated 22nd August, 2006 rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that he has received the entire amount under the EPF and he cannot be permitted to change his option. In the impugned order, the Regional Manager has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in V.K. Ramamurthy v. Union of India and another, 1997 1 UPLBEC 439. Against this background, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents/UPSRTC, wherein the stand has been taken that the petitioner has already received his post retiral benefits of EPF with interest on the basis of his own option. The petitioner had not given his option for the pension and according to his own option, the entire amount of EPF with interest has already been paid to him. It is further submitted that all the employees, who have opted for EPF scheme, have been paid their EPF amount and no employee has been permitted to change his option in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the counter affidavit reference to various Government orders has also been made.