Holding

The Triple Benefit Scheme does not apply to employees of agricultural institutions because such institutions are not among the categories listed in Rule 3, and dismissal of an SLP does not constitute a decision on the Scheme’s applicability.

Summary

The respondents were employees of a privately managed agricultural school that received grant-in-aid and offered a two‑year Agricultural Extension Diploma. After the State of Uttar Pradesh abolished the diploma course, the employees were terminated and sought post‑retirement benefits under the Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund‑Insurance‑Pension Rules, 1964 (the Triple Benefit Scheme). The Allahabad High Court, without examining the applicability of the Scheme, directed the State to pay the benefits, relying on the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against its interim order. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Rule 3, which limits the Scheme to five specific categories of institutions, and held that an agricultural school does not fall within any of those categories. Consequently, Rule 17, which provides benefits, cannot be invoked because Rule 3 does not apply. The Court also clarified that dismissal of an SLP does not constitute a substantive holding on the Scheme’s applicability, and allowed the State’s appeals, denying the respondents the benefits.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Triple Benefit Scheme applies to employees of an agricultural institution that is grant‑in‑aid but not one of the five enumerated categories.
Whether dismissal of a Special Leave Petition against an interim order amounts to a definitive decision on the applicability of the Scheme.
Whether employees are entitled to benefits under Rule 17 when Rule 3 does not apply.

Subjects

Triple Benefit SchemeRule 3Rule 17state aided educational institutionsagricultural institutionpost‑retirement benefitsSpecial Leave Petitioninterim orderapplicability of rulesgrant‑in‑aid

Judgment

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. A
-..< v.
PURUSHOTTAM PANDEY AND ORS. ETC.

OCTOBER 24, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Con-
tributary Provident Fund----Insuranc~Pension Rules, 1964 (Triple Benefit c
Scheme) Rules 3 and 17-Applicability of-Only to certain category ?f institu-
tions-Agricultural institution-Not falling within the category-Held, Rules
not applicable to employees of Agricultural institutions, since not covered
under Rule rTherefore applicability of Rule 17 does not arise.

Constitution of India, Art 136 : D

Dismissal of Special Leave Petition against interim order of High Court
wherein applicability of the Rules, was not considered-Disposal of the main
Petition by High Court, in view of the order of the Special Leave Peti-
lion-Without examining applicability of the Rules-Held, the dismissal of
Special Leave Petition would not tantamount to a definite conclusion of this
E
Court with regard to the applicability of the Rules-It only meant that there
was no justification to inteifere with the interim direction.

Respondents were employees of an agricultural institution; imparting
2 years Agricultural Extension diploma course, which was run by private F
management recognised by the State Government. State Government
decided to abolish the said diploma course and the institution was asked to
be stopped. Though the government. was intending to bring such institu·
tions under the Triple Benefit Scheme Rules, but no final decision
emanated. In view of the stoppage of the institutions, the services of the
respondents were terminated. Respondents made representation to the G
___, .. State Government, praying that provisions of Triple Benefit Scheme be
made available to them. The representation was rejected. Respondents filed
writ petition before High Court, for grant of post retiral benefits under the
Triple Benefit Scheme. High Court by its interim order directed State
Government to pay the retiral benefits under the Scheme, because the State H
723
724 SUPR,EME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A had not filed the counter. to the petition within time.
The State approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition
against the interim order, which was dismissed, without interfering with the
.order.

B The High Comt allowed the writ petition, without considering the
applicability of the s1:heme, on the ground that since Supreme Court had
dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the interim order, the writ
petition must succeed.

In appeal to this Court, the appellant State contended that the in-
C stitution being not one of the categories of institutions mentioned in Rule
3 of the Scheme, the Scheme is not applicable to the respondent and that
the dismissal of Special Leave Petition against the interim order, cannot be
construed to mean that this Court had held that the Scheme is applicable
to respondents.
D Allowiug the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The Triple Benefit Scheme has no application to the
employees of the agricultural institutions like respondents and the High
Court com~itted gross error in making the said rule applicable.
[730-H, 731-A]
E
. 1.2. A plain reading of Rule 3 unequivocally indicates that only five
categories of institutiions mentioned therein would be covered by the Triple
Benefit _Scheme Rules provided those categories of institutions are either
a
run by local body or by a Private Management and are recognised by
Competent Authority for the purpose of payment of grant-in-aid. The in-
F stitution in question, though run by PriVate Management and was in receipt
of grant-in-aid, but the same is neither a Primary School nor a Junior High
School, nor a Higher Secondary School, nor a Degree College, nor a Train-
ing College and, therefore, the said institution and the employees serving
in the said institution cannot be said to be covered under Rule 3 of the
G Rules. [728·H, 729·A·BJ

1.3. Neither thu Triple Benefit Scheme applies to the institution where
the respondent were serving proprio·vigore, nor the government has taken
any final decision making the Scheme applicable. [730·F]

H 2. The earlier order of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by this
· STATEv. PURUSHOTTAMPANDEY(PATTANAIK,J.) 725

Court against an interim direction of High Court would not tantamount to A
a definite conclusion of this Court that Triple Benefit Scheme is applicable
,""'· to the respondents. The High Court committed serious error of law in
disposing of the Writ Application solely on that ground, without examining
the question whether the Triple Benefit Scheme is at all applicable to the
respondents. During the pendency of the Writ Application when the High B
Court issued an interim-direction, there had been no adjudication nor any
conclusion has been arrived at by the High Court as to the applicability of
the Scheme to the respondents. When the State challenged the said interim
direction by filing the Special Leave Petition, dismissal thereof would mean
that this Court found no justification to interfere with the interim direction.
(731-B·C] C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13265 of
1996 etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.93 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No. 12363 of 1989. D
W. Waziri and lrshad Ahmad for the Appellants.

Sunil Gupta, B.M. Sharma and T.N. Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
PATTANAIK, J. Delay condoned in cc no. 27625 of 1994.

Leave granted
--.__
in both the SLPs.

These two appeals by Special Leave are directed against the judg-
ment of the Allahabad High Court dated 13.12.1993 allowing the Writ F
Petitions filed by the respondents and directing the appellant to make
ne,cessary payment as admissible under the Triple B~nefit Scheme, The
State of U.P. introduced a set of Rules called the Uttar Pradesh State
Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund-
Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964, called the Triple Benefit Scheme confer- G
ring certain post-retirement benefits to the employees of specified category
of institutions. Rule 3 thereof provides that employees serving in State
aided educational institutions of the following categories run either by a
Local Body or by a Private Management and recognised by a competent
authority as such for purposes of grant-in-aid would be covered by the
Rules in question. The categories of institutions mentioned therein are :- H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A 1. Primary schools;

2. Junior High Schools;

3. Higher Secondary Schools;

B 4. Degree Colleges;

5. Training Colleges.

The respondents were employees of educational institutions for im-
parting agricultural education which institutions were registered under the
C Societies Registration Act. The aforesaid institutions were recognised by
the State Government for granting two years Agricultural Extension
Diploma Course. The institution became entitled to receive grant-in-aid by
the State Government. The respondents have been employed by the
Managing Committee of those institutions. In the year 1985 the State
D Government review1!d the necessity of continuing the Diploma Course and
took a decision to abolish the said Diploma course. On 16th July 1985 the
Agricultural department of the State of U .P. informed all such institutions
including the institution where respondents were serving the decision of
the State Government that all Diploma Course would be abolished and the
institutions were advised not to take any new admission and to stop the
E institutions by the end of 1985-86. In view of the aforesaid decision of the
State Government the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the institu-
tion terminated the services of the respondents on 30th June, 1986. In April
1989 the respondents filed representation before the State Government
praying that the provisions of Triple Benefit Scheme should be made
F available to them and their retirement benefits may be conferred accord-
ingly. The State Government rejected their representation and, therefore,
they approached the High Court of Allahabad for issuance of a mandamus
to the State of U J'. to grant the post retirement benefit under the Triple
Benefit Scheme inter alia on the ground that the institution where they were
serving being aided educational institutions the employees thereof should
G be governed by the scheme in question. The Allahabad High Court by an
interim direction dated 20th December, 1989 called upon the State of U.P. ~-

to pay retirement benefits under Triple Benefit Scheme within six weeks
from the date of the order and the aforesaid interim order was passed as
the State did not file any counter affidavit though time had been granted
H for the purpose. Against the aforesaid interim direction the State of U.P.
STATEv. PURUSHOTTAMPANDEY[PATTANAIK,J.) 727

had approached this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 18303 of 1992 but this Court A
by order dated 23rd November, 1992 did not interfere with the direction
;·.- and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Thereafter by the impugned
judgment the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and held that since
the petitioners before the Court had been paid the post retirement benefits
and arrear of salary and the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special B
Leave Petition which the State had carried against the interim direction,
the Writ Petition must succeed. Hence the present appeals.

Mr. N. Waziri, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
Triple Benefit Scheme which has been made applicable to the respondents
being intended for categories of institutions mentioned in Rule 3 of the C
Scheme and the institutions imparting 2 years Diploma Course in agricul-
ture where the respondents were serving not being one of the categories
of the institutions mentioned in Rule 3 the High Court committed gross
error of law in holding that the Triple Benefit Scheme becomes applicable
to the respondents. The learned counsel also contended that the dismissal D
of the Special Leave Petition against the interim direction of Allahabad
High Court cannot be construed to mean that this Court had held that
Triple Benefit Scheme is applicable to the respondents and the High Court,
therefore, committed gross error in disposing of the Writ Petition on that
ground. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other
hand contended, that by the interim direction the High Court having called E
upon the State to pay up the retirement benefits in accordance with Triple
Benefit Scheme and that direction having been upheld by this Court in as
much as Special Leave Petition against the same was dismissed both on the
ground of limitation as well as on merits, the High Court was fully justified
in allowing the Writ Petition on that score. He also ·contended that the
F
institution where the respondents were serving being aided institutions and
were thus State Educational Institutions, the provisions of Triple Benefit
Scheme would be applicable to the employees thereof by operation of Rule
3 of the Triple Benefit Scheme Rules and, therefore, the impugned order
of the High Court does not merit interference by this Court.
G
In view of the rival submissions. the first question that arises for
consideration is whether the Krishnamurthi Foundation of India (KFL)
Agriculture School, Rajghat Fort, Varanasi, where the respondents were
serving and which institution was imparting two years Agricultural Exten-
sion Diploma Course and which course had been recognised by the State H
7'2i'J SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A Government and the institution was receiving grant-in-aid can be said to
be covered by the Triple Benefit Scheme Rules. The answer to the
aforesaid question depends upon the interpretation of Rules 3 and 17 of ,,.....
the aforesaid Rules which are quoted below in extenso :-

Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees
B Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules 1964
(hereinafter referred to as Rules in short) (Triple Benefit Scheme)
which are quoted as follows :-

"Rule 3 : These rules shall apply to permanent employees
serving in State aided educational institutions of the following
c categories run either by a Local Body or by a Private Management
and recognised by a competent authority as such for purposes of
payment of grant-in-aid :

(1) Primary Schools;
D
(2) Junior High Schools;

(3) Higher Secondary Schools;

(4) Degree Colleges;
E
(5) Training Colleges.

Rule 17 : An employee shall be eligible for pension on :-

(i) retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or on the
p expiry of ext1!nsion granted beyond the superannuation age;

(ii) voluntary retirement after completing 25 years of qualifying
serVllce;

(iii) retirement before the age of superannuation under a medi-
G cal certificate of permanent incapacity for further service; and

(iv) discharge due to abolition of post of closure of an institu-
tion due to withdrawal of recognition or other valid causes."

A plain reading of Rule 3 unequivocally indicates that only five
H categories of institutions mentioned therein would be covered by the Triple
STA1Ev. PURUSHOTTAMPANDEY[PATTANAIK,J.) 729

Benefit Scheme Rules provided those categories of institutions are either A
run by a Local Body or by a Private Management and are recognised by
Competent Authority for the purpose of payment of grant-in-aid. The
Krishnamurthi Foundation of India Agriculture School, Rajghat Fort,
Varanasi is no doubt an institution run by Private Management and was in
receipt of grant in aid. But the said institution is neither a Primary School,
B
nor a Junior High School nor a ~igher Secondary School, nor a Degree
College, nor a Training College and, therefore, the said institution and the
employees serving in the said institution cannot be said to be covered under
Rule 3 of the Rules. Then the question would arise whether the employees
serving therein would be entitled to the benefits under Rule 17. But since
the institution where the respondents were serving is not one of the c
category of institutions mentioned in Rule 3 question of considering the
applicability of Rule 17 does not arise. It is no doubt true that the
Directorate of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh was contemplating to bring such
institutions under the Triple Benefit Scheme launched by the Education
Department as is apparent from the letter of the Deputy Secretary to the D
Government in the Agricultural Department dated 19th July, 1972, but
ultimately no final decision of the Government emanated in applying the
Scheme to the Agricultural institutions probably because the Government
decided to abolish the course which was being imparted by these institu-
tions. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly relied upon the
letter of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of U.P. in the Agricul- E
tural Department dated 19th July, 1972, and contended that the Govern-
ment had taken the decision to make applicable the Triple Benefit Scheme
to the Agricultural Institutions also. But having examined the said letter we
are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respon-
dents. By the said letter it was clearly stipulated t!iat since making the F
Scheme applicable to Agricultural Department funds will be required,
necessary action may be initiated towards making necessary provision in
the General Budget relating to the Agricultural Department with a view to
make this Scheme under reference applicable to the Agricultural Depart-
ment. But infact no Budgetary provision has been made and no funds were
made available and, therefore the tentative decision of the Deputy G
Secretary to the Government in the Agricultural Department dated 19th
July, 1972 was never finalised, and on the other hand the Secretary to the
Government by his letter dated 21st April, 1987 communicated his decision
to the Director of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow stating therein that
the 2 years Diploma Course in Agriculture having been completely stopped H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A there seems no need to consider the applicability of the Triple Benefit
Scheme. The aforesaid letter of the Secretary to the Government in the
Department of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh is extracted hereinbelow in -,..,_
extenso :-

To
B
The Director Agriculture,
U.P. Lucknow.

Dated 21.4.87

c Sub : Providing the facility of General Provident Fund, Compulsory
Group Insurance Scheme and Pension to the Workers of non-
government Agriculture schools.

Sir,

D In Connection with the letter number Prasar (ET) 71, dated 9.4.87
of Agriculture Directorate regarding the_ above mentioned matter,
I have been directed to inform you that since the two year diploma
course in agriculture and Prasar has been completely stopped in
the State, and recognition of the schools has also ended, hence
there seems no need to consider the abovesaid scheme. The matter
E
be closed.

Faithfully yours,

(B.P. Verma)
F Govt. Secretary.

Thus it is apparent that neither the Triple Benefit Scheme' applies to
the institution ~here the respondents were serving proprio vigore nor the
government has taken any final decision making the Scheme applicable. On
the other hand it appears that a special set of Rules was invoked for the
G categories of employees like the respondents called the Rules for a Scheme
of Provident Fund for Agricultural School Teachers/clerks and Inspector
servants in non pensionable service and the respondents, therefore, would
be governed by those set of rules. In the aforesaid premises we have no
-,,

hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Triple Benefit Scheme Rule
H has no application to the employees of the Agricultural Institutions like
STATEv. PURUSHOTTAMPANDEY[PATTANAIK,J.) 731

respondents and the High Court committed gross error in making the said A
rule applicable.

The next question that arises for consideration is whether the con-
clusion of the High Court, that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition
by this Court against the interim direction tantamounts to a decision of this
Court that Triple Benefit Scheme applies to the respondents i~ correct in B
law. The answer to this question must be in the negative. During the
pendency of the Writ application when the High Court issued an interim
direction of 20th December, 1989 directing the State to pay the Writ
Petitioners their retirement benefit under the Triple Benefit Scheme, there
had been no adjudication nor any conclusion has been arrived at by the c
High Court as to the applicability of the Scheme to the respondents. When
the State challenged the said interim direction by filing the Special Leave
Petition and dismissal thereof would mean that this Court found no
justification to interfere with the interim direction. By no stretch of im-
agination the order of dismissal of the Special Leave Pdition by this Court
would tantamount to a definite conclusion of this Court that Triple Benefit D
Scheme is applicable to the respondents. In our considered opinion the
High Court committed serious error of law in disposing of .the Writ
Application solely on that ground without examining the question whether
the Triple Benefit Scheme is at all applicable to the respondents or not. In
view of our conclusion that the said Scheme has no application to the E
respondents these appeals are allowed and it is held that the respondents
are not entitled to the benefit of the Triple Benefit Scheme. But since they
have already received some amount in pursuance to the interim direction
of the High Court and dismissal of the Special leave Petition against the
same no recovery may be made in respect of the amount already paid.
F
These appeals are allowed with the aforesaid directions, but in the
circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeals allowed.