The High Court reaffirmed that the plain language of these provisos covers all members retiring from the Cooperative Tribunal—including those reappointed post-superannuation—thereby providing binding authority for recalculation of pension and other retiral benefits under service law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSB/259/2019 of TARKENDRA VAISHNAV Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010096092019 |
| Date of Registration | 27-06-2019 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra |
| Concurring Judge | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Service Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The plain wording of proviso (ii) of Rule 271 and proviso (4) of Rule 272 entitles any person retiring from the post of Chairman or Member of the Tribunal—including those reappointed after superannuation—to recalculated pension, gratuity and leave encashment. The court rejected the State’s narrow interpretation, held the rules pari materia with the UP Cooperative Societies Rules, and directed recalculation of benefits within 12 weeks for the period served as Tribunal members. |
| Logic / Authorities Relied Upon | Plain-text interpretation of the relevant provisos in the statutory rules |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners superannuated in 2008 and 2010 from their parent services, were appointed as Members of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Tribunal in 2010 and 2011, served until age 66, and sought revision of pension and gratuity under Rules 271(ii) and 272(4), which the Finance Department deferred pending rule amendment. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7490-DB |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | State Government and all subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar pension disputes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that proviso (ii) of Rule 271 and proviso (4) of Rule 272 apply to all retiring Tribunal members, including those reappointed post-superannuation.
- Rejects the argument that entitlement is limited to appointees who join the Tribunal before their parent-department superannuation.
- Holds that a Finance Department opinion on the need to amend rules cannot override the statutory text.
- Directs state authorities to recalculate pension and gratuity within 12 weeks, providing a clear timeline for implementation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Examined proviso (ii) of Rule 271 and proviso (4) of Rule 272 of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004.
- Rejected the State’s narrow interpretation excluding members reappointed after superannuation.
- Held that these rules are pari materia with corresponding UP Cooperative Societies provisions.
- Applied plain-text interpretation to conclude entitlement for any retiring Tribunal member.
- Directed revision of pension and other retiral benefits within 12 weeks for service rendered as Tribunal members.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Proviso (ii) of Rule 271 and proviso (4) of Rule 272 entitle them to recalculated pension, gratuity and leave-encashment as Tribunal members.
- Similar, pari materia provisions in the UP Cooperative Societies Rules support their claim.
State
- Rule 271 applies only to members who had not superannuated before their appointment to the Tribunal.
- Reappointed members post-superannuation are not covered by the proviso.
Factual Background
The petitioners, a retired IAS officer and a retired Additional Registrar, were appointed as Members of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Tribunal after their initial superannuation in 2008 and 2010. They served until reaching 66 years of age, retiring in 2014 and 2016, respectively. Although they received parent-service pension and gratuity, their Tribunal tenures were not factored into those calculations. After representations to the Competent Authority and a Finance Department review (which acknowledged the entitlement but called for rule amendment), they moved this writ petition seeking a mandamus for pension revision.
Statutory Analysis
- Proviso (ii) to Rule 271: Entitles a retiring Chairman or Member of the Tribunal to additional pension, gratuity and leave-encashment recalculated as if they had continued in service, minus amounts already paid.
- Proviso (4) to Rule 272: Grants every person appointed as Chairman or Member of the Tribunal pension and gratuity on par with Group ‘A’ State Government officers.
- The court applied a textual interpretation, finding no restriction in these provisos limiting applicability to those who joined before superannuation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7490-DB