UP Transport Corporation Employees’ Retirement Age Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds 58-Year Rule

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 16, 2019, ruled on the long-standing dispute concerning the retirement age of drivers employed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). The case, Regional Manager, UPSRTC & Anr. vs. Maslahuddin (Dead) & Ors., involved a challenge against the decision of the Labour Court and the High Court, which had upheld the retirement age of 60 years for drivers. The Supreme Court overturned the decision, confirming that drivers were correctly retired at 58 years.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose over the classification of UPSRTC drivers as either Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ employees. This classification was crucial because, under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, employees in Group ‘C’ retired at 58 years, while those in Group ‘D’ retired at 60 years.

The respondents, former drivers of UPSRTC, were appointed in 1979 at an initial pay scale of Rs.185-DRO-3-215-4-235-6-265. They were later classified under Group ‘D’. However, in 1982, the pay scales of all employees were revised based on the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, and the drivers’ pay was increased to Rs.335. Following this, in 1984 and 1985, the Board of Directors of UPSRTC issued resolutions placing the drivers in Group ‘C’, thereby setting their retirement age at 58 years.

Arguments by the Appellants (UPSRTC)

• The corporation argued that once the drivers’ pay scale was revised above Rs.200, they were automatically moved to Group ‘C’ as per Regulation 8(1) of the Service Regulations.
• The drivers were granted arrears for the revised pay scale dating back to their appointment, confirming their classification under Group ‘C’.
• Since they were receiving Group ‘C’ salaries, their retirement at 58 years was justified and in accordance with the rules.
• The Labour Court and High Court had erred in holding that the respondents should have been retired at 60 years.

Arguments by the Respondents (Employees)

• The drivers contended that at the time of their appointment, their pay scale placed them under Group ‘D’, making them eligible for retirement at 60 years.
• The classification change in 1984 should not have applied retroactively, as their original employment conditions were under Group ‘D’.
• The High Court and Labour Court correctly interpreted the rules, and their retirement age should have remained 60 years.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Court examined whether the drivers fell under Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ for retirement purposes.
• It noted that before 1982, the respondents’ salaries were below Rs.200, qualifying them for Group ‘D’. However, once their salaries were increased in line with the Pay Commission recommendations, they were moved to Group ‘C’.
• The Court held that the pay scale revision was retrospective, meaning that from their date of appointment, they were legally considered as Group ‘C’ employees.
• The drivers had accepted their revised salaries and arrears under Group ‘C’, making their claim of being Group ‘D’ employees untenable.

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the High Court’s ruling.
• It upheld the classification of the drivers under Group ‘C’, affirming that their retirement age was 58 years.
• Since the respondents had already retired, the ruling confirmed that no further claims regarding retirement benefits were valid.

Legal Implications

• This judgment clarifies that pay scale revisions affecting employee classification can be applied retrospectively.
• It reinforces the principle that employees accepting revised pay and benefits cannot later dispute classification changes.
• The ruling sets a precedent for similar service classification disputes within public sector corporations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision provided clarity on the retirement age dispute for UPSRTC drivers. It established that classification changes following pay revisions are binding, ensuring consistency in employee retirement policies.

Petitioner Name: Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr..
Respondent Name: Maslahuddin (Dead) & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 16-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Regional Manager, U. vs Maslahuddin (Dead) & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category