Case: REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.S.R.T.C Vs. MASLAHUDDIN (DEAD)

4. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:That the respondents herein were the employees as Drivers with the appellant-Corporation on 29.08.1979 initially as temporary employees on a pay scale of Rs.185-DRO-3-215-4-235-6-265. It appears that before the establishment of the appellant-Corporation the pay scale of the employees in the State Government was based on the recommendations in the years 1971-1973 of the U.P. Pay Commission. That, accordingly when the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Service Regulations?) came into force on 19.06.1981, the pay scales of the employees were classified according to the classification done by the Government. Regulation 8(1) of the Service Regulations provided that an employee whose pay scale was Rs.200/- or more, was placed in Group ?C? and an employee whose pay scale was less than Rs.200/-, was placed in Group ?D?. Regulation 37 of the Service Regulations provided that the employees of Group ?C? shall retire at the age of 58 years, while the employees of Group ?D? shall retire at the age of 60 years. According to the appellants, after the aforesaid Regulations came into force in the year 1982, the State Government, on the basis of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, revised the pay scale and the classification of the posts of all the Government employees according to the Office Memorandum No. 15/140/81-Personnel-1 dated 27.02.1982. It appears that the revision of pay scales and the revision in classification of posts for the State Government employees resulted in much agitation amongst the appellant-Corporation employees and, therefore, there was a need to revise the pay scales and the classification of the posts of all the employees of the appellant- Corporation. According to the appellants, accordingly in the year 1982, on the basis of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, the minimum pay scale of the drivers of the Corporation was revised to Rs.335/- from Rs.200/-. According to the appellants, thereafter the Board of Directors, in exercise of their powers under Regulation 8(b) of the Service Regulations, 1981, vide their Resolutions in 1984-1985 revised the classification of posts of all the employees, including the drivers and the latter were accordingly placed in Group ?C? as their pay scale was already revised to Rs.335/- and above at the relevant time. It appears that in view of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, a proposal No. 09 by the Regional Manager, the Board of Directors of the appellant-Corporation in their 84 th Meeting dated 18.01.1984 in exercise of their powers under Regulation 8(b) resolved to fix the age of superannuation of Drivers and Conductors as 58 years and placed them in Group ?C?. That vide Resolution No. 1415 of 1985, the Board of Directors resolved that the classification of the posts of all the employees would be revised in view of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission and that, in the present context, as the pay scale of the Drivers and Conductors have been revised to Rs.335-8-415-10-495 and above, they would be placed in Group ?C?. That by notification dated 10.06.1985 of the Managing Director of the appellant-Corporation, the classification of posts of all the employees were revised in view of the above-noted resolution of the Board of Directors. It was also clarified that the revision in classification will be applicable while determining the age of retirement of the employees. According to the appellant- Corporation, accordingly the drivers, including the respondents herein, were placed in Group ?C? class of employees and admittedly they had been drawing the salary of Group ?C? pay scale till the age of their retirement. That the respondents herein were retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years treating and considering them in Group ?C?. The respondents challenged the order of retirement before the Labour Court. That by a common judgment and award dated 23.09.2004, the Labour Court held that the age of retirement of the concerned workmen-Drivers shall be 60 years as they were appointed before 30.06.1982.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award passed by the Labour Court holding that the age of retirement of the respondents was to be at 60 years and that the respondents were wrongly retired at the age of 58 years, the appellant-Corporation preferred the writ petitions before the High Court.5.1 That, by the impugned common Judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions and has confirmed the Judgment and award passed by the Labour Court.5.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant- Corporation has preferred the present appeals.

Court's reasoning:
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties atIt is required to be noted that all those employees who were getting the salary less then Rs.200/- would fall in Group ?D? category. As per the Rules prevailing at the relevant time, the employees getting salary more than Rs.200/- would fall in Group ?A?, ?B? or ?C? as per the classification and those who would not fall in either Group ?A?, ?B? or ?C? category, they would fall in Group ?D? category. As per the Rules prevailing at the relevant time, the age of superannuation of Group ?D? employees was 60 years and for the others, i.e. Group ?A?, ?B? and ?C?, the age of retirement was 58is no further counter on behalf of the respondents to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the appellant-Corporation. Therefore, the averments in the rejoinder on behalf of the appellant- Corporation had gone uncontroverted.8.4 In view of the above, both the Labour Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in holding that the respective respondents-Drivers were in Group ?D? category and that their age of superannuation would be 60 years. As the pay scale of the respective respondents-Drivers was revised to Rs.335-8-415-10- 495 with retrospective effect and in fact they were paid the arrears also, thereafter it was not open for the respondents-Drivers to contend that as per their original pay scale, their salary was less than Rs.200/- on the pay scale of 185-DRO-3-215-4-235-6-265, they would be in Group ?D? category. Once having taken the advantage of the revised pay scale retrospectively and that their pay scale was revised to Rs. 335-8-415-10-495 with retrospective effect and they were paid the arrears which the respective respondents accepted, in that case, they would fall in Group ?C? category and, therefore, considering the Rules, their age of superannuation would be 58 years and not 60 years, as contended on behalf of the respective respondents-Drivers. Therefore, the appellant- Corporation rightly retired/superannuated the respective respondents-Drivers on completion of 58 years of age.