Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Aug 2: The High Court, in a major relief to hundreds of retired employees of State Road Transport Corporation (SRTC) has held that these employees are entitled to all retiral benefits including pension, gratuity and other benefits.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey while allowing the petition of 543 retired employees of the Corporation has held them entitled to all the retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity etc. Court said they are entitled to all these benefits on par and on the analogy of the section of the employees of the Corporation who were employees of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertakings (GTU) and had opted for the service of the Corporation, and also on the analogy of their counterparts in the JKI and other Corporations.
The Board of Directors of the Corporation having already taken a decision in this regard and referred the matter to the Government in the Finance Department and by issuance of a writ of Mandams court directed the authorities to consider the request of the Corporation made in this regard by the Managing Director of the Corporation in terms of his communication no. JKRTC/MD/PS/J/GMA/870 dated 15.06.2020 within a period of four months from the date a copy of this judgment is served on and/or received by them. “In consequence thereof, the petitioners shall be paid the arrears of necessary dues as may be payable to them from the date of their retirement”, read the judgment.
The instant petition was filed by the Association of Employees of the Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation through its Coordinator on behalf of 543 of its members mostly comprising Sweepers, Helpers, Cleaners, Bus Washers, Assistant Fitters, Fitters, Conductors and Drivers, primarily, seeking a direction to the respondent-Corporation to treat them as Government employees and, consequently, entitled to retiral benefits, including gratuity, pension etc as extended to its such of the employees who were earlier working in the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking etc.
During the pendency of the writ petition the Court passed an interim direction, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners’ pending representation. Purportedly in compliance thereof, the respondents rejected the same vide order 2 no. JKSRTC/Pen/II/1157 dated 29.10.2016 in consequence whereof the petitioners amended the writ petition to seek certiorari for quashing the said consideration order.
The case of the petitioners is that the group of employees were given an option to draw the pensionary benefits under the rules applicable to the permanent Government employees, the petitioners constituting the same class of employees of the Corporation, on the one hand were not given any such option and on the other hand they were always equally treated as Government employees, governed by the Government service Rules, so much so that none of the benefits available to the Corporation employees under the Service Regulations, 1979, like bonus, share in the profit of the Corporation and a role in the running of the affairs of the management of the Corporation, as provided under the Act have been provided to them.
With a view to settling the terms of adjustment of the staff of the erstwhile GTU in the Corporation, the then State Government in the Transport Department, pursuant to Cabinet Decision no.51 dated 19.02.1979, issued order no.25-TR of 1979 dated 27.03.1979 whereby different options were given to different categories of these employees. It was also provided therein that the Government servants (erstwhile GTU employees) could seek retirement or permanent absorption in the Corporation.
Those who opted for service of the Corporation, were given the option to either retain the pensionary benefits available to them under the Government Rules or be governed by the rules of the Corporation insofar as it related to the benefits consequent upon retirement.
The petitioners herein were appointed in the Corporation from the year 1976/77 onwards, mostly upto 1986. Obviously, those of the erstwhile GTU employees who had opted for Corporation service to be governed by its rules and the petitioners herein constituted a homogeneous group of employees of the Corporation, for, both these groups were governed by the Service Regulations, 1979.
Court , keeping all the relevant facts and factors in view, said, the Board of Directors of the Corporation have taken a decision in favour of the petitioners. Now the matter is, admittedly, under consideration with the government. “The Court would wish to add only one thing here which is that Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of a Corporation shall vest in a Board of Directors. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act says that the Board shall consist of a Chairman and such other Directors, being not less than five and not more than seventeen, as the State Government may think fit to appoint”, read the judgment.
Underscoring the law court said there was no compulsion for the Government to appoint such high ranking Government officers, who in their official capacities are empowered to take major governmental decisions in their respective departments, as Chairman, Vice Chairman and Directors of the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
Yet, the Government court added, having done so could not have been without any purpose and the purpose, obviously, is that these authorities, who otherwise have to deal with specific issues pertaining to their respective departments in their individual capacities may collectively deliberate over an issue and take a quick and collective decision.
“In that view of the matter, once a decision is taken by the high ranking officers collectively constituting the Board of Directors – a statutory body – and is referred by such forum to one of them for further action, it ought not take so long a time at the level of the Finance Department for implementing the decision 27 of the Corporation, for, nothing more is required to be done, the matter having already been considered while sitting in the Board of Directors”, read the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
