A bench of the Uttarakhand High Court, comprising Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Alok Mahra, addressed a writ petition filed by two retired civil servants—one a former Indian Administrative Service officer and the other a former Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Both individuals had, after superannuation, been appointed as Members of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Tribunal. They contended that their post-retirement entitlements, including pension, gratuity, and related benefits, had not been revised to account for the period served in the Tribunal. Their claims were based on explicit provisions under Rule 271(ii) and Rule 272(4) of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004, which, they argued, entitled them to recalculated benefits by including this additional period of service, after appropriate deductions for benefits already received from their parent services.
The factual background reveals that the first petitioner, an IAS officer, retired from his parent service on October 31, 2008, and was later appointed as a Member of the Cooperative Tribunal on October 26, 2010. The second petitioner, the Additional Registrar, similarly retired from his parent post on November 30, 2010, and was appointed to the Tribunal on January 7, 2011. Following their service in the Tribunal, both petitioners sought recalculations of their pensions, gratuity, and other post-retirement benefits inclusive of the Tribunal tenure, invoking the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Rules. Their representations, supported by the Chairman of the Cooperative Tribunal, were forwarded to the State Government and then to the Finance Department, but no final action was taken.
The petitioners argued that proviso (ii) to Rule 271 of the Cooperative Societies Rules clearly provided that a person retiring as Chairman or Member of the Cooperative Tribunal was entitled to additional benefits calculated as if he had never retired from his parent service, with deductions made for any amounts already received. They contended that Rule 272(4) aligned with this principle, stipulating that pension and gratuity must be calculated as applicable to a Group “A” officer of the State Government. The petitioners further invoked precedents and noted that similar rules in Uttar Pradesh’s Cooperative Societies Rules (Rules 253 and 254) had been enacted and applied.
Responding, the State argued that these provisions applied only where a person was already serving as a Member of the Tribunal before superannuation. In their case, since both petitioners were appointed only after formal retirement from their parent services, the State asserted that the Rules did not extend to them and, therefore, the Tribunal period could not be added for pension recalculations.
Upon careful examination, the court first interpreted the relevant proviso of Rule 271, which provided that a person retiring from the position of Chairman or Member of the Cooperative Tribunal would be entitled to additional pension, gratuity, and leave encashment as if he had never retired from his parent service, after deducting the amount already paid on retirement of parent service. The court observed that this language did not restrict applicability only to those appointed prior to retirement; rather, it clearly entitled all persons retiring from the Tribunal to this benefit, irrespective of their retirement status from parent service.
The court further held that Rule 272(4) mandated that every person appointed as Chairman or Member of the Tribunal is entitled to pension and gratuity as applicable to Group “A” officers, thereby reinforcing the entitlement. In view of these clear provisions, the bench found that the petitioners had a legal entitlement to have their pensions and other retiral benefits recalculated to include the Tribunal service, with only the amounts already paid to be deducted.
Consequently, the court directed that the petitioners’ pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits be recalculated in accordance with proviso (ii) to Rule 271 and the benefit provisions in Rule 272(4). The recalculation was to be done within a period of 12 weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order. The court specified that the recalculated amount should strictly pertain to the period served as Members of the Cooperative Tribunal, with only amounts already drawn being deducted.
With these directions, the court disposed of the writ petition, stating there would be no order as to costs.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.