Summary
A larger Bench considered whether State of U.P. v. Preetam Singh needed reconsideration, and upheld it. It held that appointing staff and fixing their service conditions are not functions of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad under Section 15 of the 1965 Act. The power to fix them belongs to the Board, through regulations under Section 95(1)(f). The State cannot override those regulations by directions under Section 92(2) of the 1965 Act or Section 2(1) of the 1975 Act, but it may frame overriding Rules under Section 94(2)(nn). Deciding the appeals itself, the Court held that the Board's 2009 pension regulations govern. Employees who took old-scheme benefits on undertakings before the interim order of 07.09.2012 are excluded. Pension is to be computed on notional pay revision from 01.01.2006. Arrears of revised pay for 01.01.2006–13.01.2010 were denied on grounds of financial constraint.
Issues
- Whether determining the service conditions of officers and employees is a function of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, and whether the State Government can issue directions on them under Section 92(2) of the 1965 Act or Section 2(1) of the 1975 Act.
- Who is entitled to the Board's new pension scheme, and whether arrears of revised pay from 01.01.2006 to 13.01.2010 are payable.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7, 8, 15 and 95(1)(f), Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965Section 7 lets the State prescribe the Housing Commissioner's service conditions, whereas Section 8 only lets it control and restrict appointments; service conditions of other staff are for the Board's regulations, and appointments serve, but are not, the Section 15 functions. (¶¶ 25, 26, 28, 29, 30)
- Sections 92(2) and 94(2)(nn), Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965Directions under Section 92(2) cannot nullify statutory regulations; the State may override them only by framing Rules under Section 94(2)(nn), which then prevail over repugnant regulations (Nazir Ahmed). (¶¶ 27, 31)
- Section 2(1), U.P. State Control Over Public Corporations Act, 1975A general power to give policy directions in the discharge of functions, which yields to the special scheme of the 1965 Act and cannot override the Board's regulations. (¶ 33)
Held
- Preetam Singh correctly held that service conditions of officers and employees are not functions of the Board; its functions are those in Section 15 and Chapter III, and the 'subject to' opening of Section 15(1) does not enlarge them. (¶¶ 30, 32, 34)
- The State had no power to issue directions on service conditions under Section 92(2) or Section 2(1) of the 1975 Act, but may frame Rules under Section 94(2)(nn), which will prevail over inconsistent regulations made under Section 95(1)(f). (¶¶ 31, 33, 34, 45)
- Under the unchallenged notification of 19.05.2009, otherwise eligible staff who retired on or after 01.01.2006 and had not taken old-scheme benefits before 07.09.2012 get the new pension with Preetam Singh interest on differentials; those who accepted old-scheme benefits on undertakings before that date do not; appointees from 01.04.2005 fall under the State's contributory rules. (¶¶ 37, 38, 41, 45)
- Since the Board framed no pay regulations, staff are entitled to the revised pay structure under the State's orders, fixed notionally from 01.01.2006 and used for pension, but financial constraint validly bars arrears for 01.01.2006 to 14.01.2010, without recovery of arrears already paid. (¶¶ 40, 43, 44, 45)
Result
Reference answered upholding Preetam Singh with the stated modification; Civil Appeal Nos. 6622-6623 and 6626-6627 of 2022 disposed of, modifying the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) judgment dated 16.03.2018 in terms of the conclusions, with revised pay to be extended within three months; no costs.