IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 207 of 2008 The Executive Engineer & another. ….Appellants. Versus Ram Chandra Maithani and another. …Respondents. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Ms. Beena Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) Through the instant Special Appeal, the appellants have assailed the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 14.5.2008 disposing of Writ Petition (SB) No. 1422 of 2002. By the aforesaid order dated 14.5.2008, this Court arrived at the conclusion that respondent no. 1 herein was entitled to pensionery benefits. The order dated 14.5.2008 disposing of Writ Petition (SB) No. 1422 of 2002 has been assailed before this Court by the State of Uttarakhand. The claim of pension pertaining to respondent no. 1, who is stated to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 1998, can only be the liability of the State of Uttar Pradesh on account of the fact that the composite State of Uttar Pradesh was reorganised with the creation of the successor State of Uttarakhand on 9.11.2000. Thus viewed, it is apparent that respondent no. 1 retired on attaining the age of superannuation well before the creation of the successor State of Uttarakhand. In terms of Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2 2000 read with paragraph 2 of the Eighth Schedule appended thereto, the liability to pay pension to respondent no. 1 rests squarely on the shoulders of the State of Uttar Pradesh i.e. respondent no. 2 in the instant Special Appeal. Section 54 of the 2000 Act, as also, paragraph 2 of the Eighth Schedule are being extracted hereunder for facility of reference:- “54. Pensions.-The liability of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh in respect of the pensions shall pass to, or be apportioned between, the successor States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal in accordance with the provisions contained in the Eighth Schedule to this Act.” **** ***** ***** 2. Subject to the said adjustments, the liability in respect of pensions of officers serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh who retire or proceed on leave preparatory to retirement before the appointed day, but whose claim for pensions are outstanding immediately before that day, shall be the liability of the State of Uttar Pradesh.” When confronted with the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the appellants, as also, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 acknowledged that in terms of the provisions extracted hereinabove, the liability to pay pension to respondent no. 1 would only be on the successor State of Uttar Pradesh, and not on the successor State of Uttarakhand. Based on the aforesaid concession, it is apparent to us that the appellants who have filed the present appeal have done so without any justification whatsoever and without any locus standi, inasmuch as, the appellants herein are not to shoulder the responsibility of paying pension adjudicated by the learned Single Judge through the impugned order dated 14.5.2008 while disposing of Writ Petition (SB) No. 1422 of 2002. 3 In view of the above, the instant Special Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable at the hands of the appellants. Special Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 11.3.2010 Rathour