Court Directs Fresh Representation Rather Than Adjudicating Pension Entitlement; Persuasive for Service-Law Petitions
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/515/2023 of RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY |
| CNR | UKHC010049362023 |
| Date of Registration | 31-03-2023 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Questions of Law | Whether an employee of the Provincial Cooperative Union is entitled to state pension. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7525 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Practical Impact | No specific precedential holdings; order is limited to permitting fresh administrative representation. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court will not pre-emptively decide pensionability of cooperative-union employees, requiring exhaustion of departmental remedy first.
- Clarifies that even where entitlement is disputed, writ petitions may be disposed after directing fresh representation.
- Petitioners challenging pension eligibility from state bodies should ensure formal representation is on record before seeking court intervention.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioner claims entitlement to pension and other retiral benefits on retirement from a cooperative-union post.
- Respondent State concedes payment of gratuity, PF, group insurance and leave encashment but denies pension liability, asserting non-pensionable status.
- Petitioner has pending administrative plea (Annexure-6); court deems administrative remedy not exhausted.
- Writ petition disposed by directing petitioner to file fresh representation within three weeks and Registrar to decide within four months.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Entitled to pension and all retiral benefits post-retirement from Cooperative Inspector Group-II.
- Only gratuity and PF released; other dues withheld unjustly.
Respondent (State)
- PF, gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment already paid.
- Petitioner was an employee of the Provincial Cooperative Union, not a State employee, hence non-pensionable.
Factual Background
Rajendra Prasad was appointed as Cooperative Supervisor on 14 January 1999 and retired as Cooperative Inspector, Group-II on 31 January 2022. He received gratuity, provident fund, group-insurance and leave-encashment payments but not pension or other retiral benefits. He filed a writ petition seeking direction for payment of pension and dues. The State opposed on the ground that a Provincial Cooperative Union employee does not qualify for state pension. A pending administrative representation was on record.
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7525 (High Court of Uttarakhand)