# Abdul Qayoom Ansari & Anr v. U.P. Industrial Co-Operative Association Ltd

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 632
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-21
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 3068 of 2018
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abdul-qayoom-ansari-anr-v-u-p-industrial-co-operative-association-ltd-53740
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C., Amit Chandra, Nadeem Murtaza,
Prashast Puri

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility
to
raise
ground
of
nonregularization of the petitioner, appointed on
daily-wage, but continuously rendered the
service of 37 to 38 years to negate the right
accruing to the petitioner.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Regularization
-
Appointed as Salesman on daily wage in
1984 and 1985
- The order dated
17.01.2018
rejecting
the
claim
for
regularization was stayed by the High
Court - The petitioners have rendered
uninterrupted service of 37 to 38 years -
During pendency of writ petition against
this order, petitioner no. 1 was retired and
petitioner no. 2 was died - Effect -
Grounds that the respondent no. 1, being
in a precarious financial position, and
further that petitioners were retrenched in
2007, were taken to justify the nonregularization - Permissibility :
Held : Despite having been retrenched in the
year 2007, the writ Court, vide the order dated
22.08.2017, directed that the duration for which
the petitioners had worked was to be taken into
consideration while considering the case of the
petitioners for regularization - Merely because
the respondent No. 1 is in a precarious financial
position, the rights which have accrued to the
petitioners
cannot
be
negated
and
the
continuous working of 37 to 38 years cannot be
written off on the whims, fancies and caprices
of the respondent No. 1. [Paras 40 and 41] (E1)

Case Law Cited
Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and
another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 - referred
to.

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Services of
Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work
Charge or on Contract Basis on Posts Within the
Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative
Institutional Service Board in Co-operative
Societies
Regulations,
2017
-
Clause
4;
Regularization Rules, 1985, as amended by the
Rules, 1990.

List of Keywords
Retrenchment;
Salesman;
Daily
wages;
regularization; Retirement; Co-operative society;
precarious
financial
position;
Rendering
continuous
service;
Non-regularization;
Livelihoods
and
dignity;
workers;
Recommendation by the Commission; Whims,
fancies and caprices of the respondent.

Case Arising From
The order of the respondent dated 17.01.2018
rejecting the claim of petitioners for their
regularization.

## Text

632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. With these observations and
directions, this petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 632
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 3068 of 2018

Abdul Qayoom Ansari & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Industrial Co-Operative Association
Ltd. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Kartikey Dubey, Anshuman Singh, Ashok
Kumar Singh, Geetika Yadav, Riya Ghosh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Amit Chandra, Nadeem Murtaza,
Prashast Puri

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility
to
raise
ground
of
nonregularization of the petitioner, appointed on
daily-wage, but continuously rendered the
service of 37 to 38 years to negate the right
accruing to the petitioner.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Regularization
-
Appointed as Salesman on daily wage in
1984 and 1985
- The order dated
17.01.2018
rejecting
the
claim
for
regularization was stayed by the High
Court - The petitioners have rendered
uninterrupted service of 37 to 38 years -
During pendency of writ petition against
this order, petitioner no. 1 was retired and
petitioner no. 2 was died - Effect -
Grounds that the respondent no. 1, being
in a precarious financial position, and
further that petitioners were retrenched in
2007, were taken to justify the nonregularization - Permissibility :
Held : Despite having been retrenched in the
year 2007, the writ Court, vide the order dated
22.08.2017, directed that the duration for which
the petitioners had worked was to be taken into
consideration while considering the case of the
petitioners for regularization - Merely because
the respondent No. 1 is in a precarious financial
position, the rights which have accrued to the
petitioners
cannot
be
negated
and
the
continuous working of 37 to 38 years cannot be
written off on the whims, fancies and caprices
of the respondent No. 1. [Paras 40 and 41] (E1)

Case Law Cited
Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and
another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 - referred
to.

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Services of
Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work
Charge or on Contract Basis on Posts Within the
Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative
Institutional Service Board in Co-operative
Societies
Regulations,
2017
-
Clause
4;
Regularization Rules, 1985, as amended by the
Rules, 1990.

List of Keywords
Retrenchment;
Salesman;
Daily
wages;
regularization; Retirement; Co-operative society;
precarious
financial
position;
Rendering
continuous
service;
Non-regularization;
Livelihoods
and
dignity;
workers;
Recommendation by the Commission; Whims,
fancies and caprices of the respondent.

Case Arising From
The order of the respondent dated 17.01.2018
rejecting the claim of petitioners for their
regularization.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

[C.M. Application No. IA/21 of 2024
: Application for Substitution]

(1)
This
is
an
application
for
substitution of the legal heirs of petitioner
No.2.
8 All. Abdul Qayoom Ansari & Anr. Vs. U.P. Industrial Co-Operative Association Ltd.
633

(2)
Shri
Amit Chandra,
learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.1,
Shri
Prashast
Puri,
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2 and
learned Standing Counsel representing the
State-respondent No.3 have no objection to
the same.

(3)
On
due
consideration,
the
application is allowed.

(4) Let the legal heirs of the petitioner
No.2 be substituted during the course of the
day.

[order on petition]

(5) Heard Ms. Gitika Yadav, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri
Amit Chandra, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1, Shri Prashast Puri,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent No.2 as well as learned
Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondent No.3.

(6) The instant writ petition has been
filed praying for the following reliefs :-

"I. Issue a writ of certiorari or a
writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order
dated 17.01.2018 passed by the opposite
party No.1, contained in Annexure No.1 to
the writ petition.

II. Issue a writ of mandamus or a
writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents not
to give effect to the order dated 17.01.2018
passed by the opposite party no.1, contained
in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, and to
allow the petitioners to continue to discharge
their duties with full back wages/salary, and
to continue to pay salary to the petitioners.

III. Issue a writ of mandamus or a
writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to
forthwith regularise the services of the
petitioners
and
accord
them
all
consequential benefits including grant of
regular scale of pay, payment of arrears of
salary according to the scale as applicable
to them from time to time, and grant of
seniority taking into consideration the
entire duration of service of the petitioner.

IV. Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction requiring the opposite
parties to pay heavy cost to the petitioners
for
subjecting
them
to
unwarranted
harassment and mental anguish."

(7) The petitioners are aggrieved by an
order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the
respondent No.1, a copy of which is
Annexure-1 to the petition. A further prayer
is for a mandamus commanding the
respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioners
and
to
accord
them
all
consequential benefits including regular
scale of pay, payment of arrears, etc.

(8) By means of the order dated
17.01.2018, the petitioners have been
informed that their retrenchment order
dated 31.01.2007 is being given effect to
with immediate effect.

(9) The order impugned has been
stayed by this Court vide order dated
01.02.2018 and the said stay order is still
continuing till date.

(10) Bereft of any unnecessary details,
the facts set forth by learned counsel for the
petitioners are that the petitioners were
appointed
as
Salesmen
under
the
respondent No.1 on daily wages with effect
from
12.09.1985
and
24.09.1984
634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respectively. They continued in service
without any break.

(11)
After
that
petitioners
had
continued for a sufficient period of time,
yet they are not regularized, they were
constrained to file Writ Petition No.2486
(S/S) of 2000 in Re: Raj Kumar Divedi vs.
U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association
Limited and others praying for the
regularization.

(12)
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners states that both the petitioners
were also the petitioners in the said
petition.

(13) The said petition was decided
vide the judgment and order dated
18.04.2006, a copy of which is Annexure-8
to the petition, with a direction to the
respondent No.1 to consider the case of the
petitioners for regularization, taking into
consideration the long period of working.

(14)
Instead
of
regularizing
the
petitioners, an undated order was passed by
the respondents, a copy of which is
Annexure-9 to the petition, whereby the
petitioners were not found eligible for
being regularized. Being aggrieved, the
petitioners filed Writ Petition No.6377
(S/S) of 2006 challenging the undated order
by which the regularization had been
rejected
and
praying
for
their
regularization.

(15) This Court in Writ Petition
No.6377 (S/S) of 2006, by means of order
dated
06.11.2006,
as
reproduced
in
paragraph 21 of the petition, directed that
till further orders, the respondents shall not
proceed to retrench the petitioners from
service.

(16) During the pendency of the
petition, the respondents issued an order
dated 31.01.2007, whereby the services of
the petitioners and the others were
retrenched.

(17) However, in pursuance to the
interim order dated 06.11.2006, admittedly,
the petitioners were continued in service
and were never retrenched.

(18) The Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S)
of 2006 was decided vide judgment and
order dated 11.04.2017 as corrected on
22.08.2017, copies of which have been
filed as Annexures-2 and 3 to the petition.

(19)
The
corrected
order
dated
22.08.2017 recorded the statement of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
case of the petitioners is covered by the
Regularization Rules, 1985 as amended by
the Rules, 1990. His submission that the
entire duration for which the petitioners
worked be also considered was also
recorded. This Court indicated that it goes
without saying that the duration for which
the petitioners worked has to be taken into
consideration while considering the case of
the
petitioners
for
regularization.
Respondent No.2 was directed to consider
the
case
of
the
petitioners
for
regularization, taking into consideration the
observations made by this Court vide order
dated 22.08.2017.

(20) In pursuance thereof, the case of
the petitioners for regularization has been
rejected
vide
impugned
order
dated
16/17.01.2018,
a
copy of
which
is
Annexure-1 to the petition, on the ground
that the retrenchment order is being given
effect, i.e., with effect from the date of
issuance of the order dated 16/17.01.2018.
8 All. Abdul Qayoom Ansari & Anr. Vs. U.P. Industrial Co-Operative Association Ltd.
635

(21) Raising a challenge to the said
order and praying for regularization, the
instant petition has been filed.

(22)
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners states that both the petitioners
have already retired from service in the
year 2022 itself and petitioner No.2 has
also died during pendency of the instant
petition and his legal heirs have been
substituted.

(23) The contention is that the
petitioners have rendered long period of
service since the year 1984-85 till their
retirement wherein they continued to work
continuously. The Regularization Rules
have been issued, namely, the Uttar
Pradesh Regularization of Services of
Persons Working on Daily Wages or on
Work Charge or on Contract Basis on Posts
Within the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh
Co-operative Institutional Service Board in
Co-operative Societies Regulations, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as "Regulations,
2017") which in Clause 4 categorically
provides for regularization of any person
who was directly engaged or employed or
deployed for working on daily wages or on
work charge or on contract basis in a Cooperative Society under the purview of the
Board on or before 31.12.2001 and still
engaged or employed or deployed or
working
as
such
on
the
date
of
commencement of the Regulations, which
commenced on 04.12.2017. It is contended
that the case of the petitioners for
regularization stood crystallized on the date
of promulgation of the said Regulations,
2017 i.e. 04.12.2017 and consequently, the
respondents are patently in error while
passing the impugned order in rejecting
the
claim
of
the
petitioners
for
regularization and also in contending that
the retrenchment order is to come into
force with immediate effect.

(24) The further contention is that
once the petitioners had been continued
in service for a period of about 38 years,
consequently,
there
cannot
be
any
occasion for the respondents to have not
considered them for regularization, rather
rejected their claim for regularization and
to have indicated in the impugned order
that
the
retrenchment
order
dated
31.01.2007 is being implemented with
effect from 16/17.01.2018.

(25) On the other hand, Shri Amit
Chandra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent
No.1,
has
justified
the
impugned order by contending that the
petitioners, along with several others, had
been retrenched vide the order dated
31.01.2007 on account of the precarious
financial position of respondent No.1.
However, in terms of the order of the writ
Court dated 06.11.2006, whereby the
petitioners were directed to continue until
further orders, both the petitioners were
continued in service. It is only when the
writ petition was decided vide the order
dated 11.04.2017 and the Court directed
for consideration of the claim of the
petitioners
for
regularization
that
considering the earlier retrenchment order
dated 31.01.2007, the said order was
directed to be implemented with effect
from 16/17.01.2018 as indicated in the
said order. Thus, once the petitioners are
retrenched
employees,
consequently,
there
cannot
be
any
occasion
for
regularization in terms of Regulations,
2017. Shri Chandra states that the
respondent No.1 is in a precarious
financial situation and it is not possible to
regularize the petitioners.
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(26) Shri Prashast Puri, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2,
has stated that in terms of the Regulations,
2017, repeated reminders have been sent to
respondent No.1 for sending of the
Managing
Director
of
the
society/respondent
No.1,
who
is
the
Member/Secretary
of
the
Selection
Committee for the purpose of consideration
by the Selection Committee in terms of
Clause 5 of the Regulations, 2017, for the
purpose of consideration of the claim of the
petitioners for regularization, but the
respondent No.1 has failed to send the
Managing Director of the society. In this
regard, Shri Puri has placed reliance on
various letters that have been sent by the
Commission, including the letter dated
25.03.2025.

(27) Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

(28) From the arguments as raised by
learned counsel for the contesting parties
and perusal of record, it emerges that the
petitioners were appointed as Salesmen
under respondent No.1 on daily wages with
effect from 12.09.1985 and 24.09.1984
respectively and retired in the year 2022
and, as such, till their retirement in the year
2022 had rendered almost 37 to 38 years of
continuous service. As they had not been
regularized, they filed a writ in the year
2000 praying for the regularization, which
was decided in April, 2006 with a direction
to the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioners for regularization. However,
their case for regularization was rejected.

(29) Perusal of the rejection order, a
copy of which is Annexure-9 to the
petition,
would
indicate
that
the
respondents have not disputed that other
persons who were working on daily wages
had been regularized. However, respondent
No.1 has indicated that it has no power to
regularize the petitioners, as the said power
lies with the Sansthagat Sewa Mandal, i.e.,
respondent No.2.

(30) Being aggrieved with the said
order, the petitioners again filed Writ
Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006, praying for
quashing of the order of rejection of
regularization and further praying for their
regularization. During pendency of the writ
petition,
by
means
of
order
dated
31.01.2007, the services of the petitioners
and others were retrenched. This Court,
vide order dated 06.11.2006, had earlier
directed that, till further orders, the
respondents shall not proceed to retrench
the petitioners from service. As such,
considering
the
interim
order
dated
06.11.2006, the petitioners were continued
in service. Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of
2006 was decided vide the judgment and
order dated 11.04.2017 as corrected on
22.08.2017, whereby the statement of
learned counsel for the petitioners was
recorded that the case of the petitioners is
covered by the Regularization Rules, 1985
as amended by the Rules, 1990. The writ
Court indicated that the duration for which
the petitioners worked has to be taken into
consideration while considering their case
for regularization and the respondents were
directed to consider the case of the
petitioners for regularization considering
the observations made in the order dated
22.08.2017.

(31) The case of the petitioners for
regularization was rejected vide the order
impugned dated 17.01.2018 on the ground
that
the
retrenchment
order
dated
31.01.2007 is to come into force with
immediate effect, i.e., with the date of
issuance of the order dated 17.01.2018.
8 All. Abdul Qayoom Ansari & Anr. Vs. U.P. Industrial Co-Operative Association Ltd.
637

(32) Being aggrieved, the petitioners
filed the instant petition in which this Court
passed an interim order dated 01.02.2018
directing
that
the
operation
and
enforcement of the order dated 17.01.2018
shall remain stayed. The petitioners thus
again continued in service. The order
continued to remain in operation and
ultimately,
the
petitioners
retired
on
attaining the age of superannuation in the
year 2022.

(33) From perusal of the aforesaid
facts, it thus emerges that the petitioners
have been in continuous service since their
initial appointment, i.e., 12.09.1985 and
24.09.1984 respectively and have also
retired
on
attaining
the
age
of
superannuation in the year 2022 having
rendered almost 37 to 38 years of
continuous
service.
The
claim
of
regularization was earlier rejected. The
petitioners were also retrenched and the
retrenchment order was also sought to be made
effective vide the order dated 17.01.2018.
However, the fact of the matter remains that the
petitioners have rendered uninterrupted service
of 37 to 38 years and thus it is apparent that the
petitioners have spent their entire working
period under respondent No.1 but the benefit of
regularization has not been extended to
them.

(34) The only ground taken by Shri
Amit Chandra, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.1, to justify the nonregularization and the retrenchment of the
petitioners is that respondent No.1 is in a
precarious financial position and, once the
petitioners
are
retrenched
employees,
consequently there cannot be any occasion
for their regularization.

(35) Whether the aforesaid ground(s)
for non-regularization of the petitioners
would be available to respondent No.1
would have to be seen by this Court.

(36) Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dharam Singh and
others vs. State of U.P. and another :
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, had an
occasion to consider a matter where there
were no regularization rules, yet the
persons concerned had continued to work
for a long period of time and the State had
benefited from their services.

(37) In these circumstances, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-

"1.
When
public
institutions
depend, day after day, on the same hands
to
perform
permanent
tasks,
equity
demands that those tasks are placed on
sanctioned posts, and those workers are
treated with fairness and dignity. The
controversy
before
us
is
not about
rewarding irregular employment. It is
about whether years of ad hoc engagement,
defended by shifting excuses and pleas of
financial strain, can be used to deny the
rights of those who have kept public
institutions running. We resolve it by
insisting that public employment should be
organised with fairness, reasoned decision
making, and respect for the dignity of work.

....

17. Before concluding, we think it
necessary to recall that the State (here
referring to both the Union and the State
governments) is not a mere market
participant but a constitutional employer. It
cannot balance budgets on the backs of
those who perform the most basic and
recurring public functions. Where work
recurs day after day and year after year,
the establishment must reflect that reality
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in its sanctioned strength and engagement
practices. The long-term extraction of
regular labour under temporary labels
corrodes
confidence
in
public
administration and offends the promise of
equal protection. Financial stringency
certainly has a place in public policy, but it
is not a talisman that overrides fairness,
reason and the duty to organise work on
lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily
be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where
administration
is
opaque.
The
State
Departments must keep and produce
accurate establishment registers, muster
rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and
they must explain, with evidence, why they
prefer
precarious
engagement
over
sanctioned posts where the work is
perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the
record should show what alternatives were
considered, why similarly placed workers
were treated differently, and how the
chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Sensitivity to the human consequences of
prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality.
It is a constitutional discipline that should
inform every decision affecting those who
keep public offices running.

....

20.
We
have
framed
these
directions comprehensively because, case
after case, orders of this Court in such
matters
have
been
met
with
fresh
technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations,"
and administrative drift which further
prolongs the insecurity for those who have
already laboured for years on daily wages.
Therefore, we have learned that Justice in
such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
directions, but it demands imposition of
clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable
compliance. As a constitutional employer,
the State is held to a higher standard and
therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a
budget
for
lawful
engagement,
and
implement judicial directions in letter and
spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is
not mere negligence but rather it is a
conscious method of denial that erodes
livelihoods and dignity for these workers.
The operative scheme we have set here
comprising of creation of supernumerary
posts,
full
regularization,
subsequent
financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of
compliance,
is
therefore
a
pathway
designed to convert rights into outcomes
and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement
and transparency in administration are not
matters of grace, but obligations under
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India."

(38) Perusal of the said judgment of
Dharam Singh (supra) indicates that the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
has
issued
comprehensive directions as, case after
case, orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
have been met with fresh technicalities
which prolong the insecurity of those who
have already laboured for years on daily
wages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of
the view that such circumstances demand
the imposition of clear duties, fixed
timelines and verifiable compliance and
that as a constitutional employer, the State
is held to a higher standard and, therefore,
it must organize its perennial workers on a
sanctioned footing, create a budget for
lawful engagement and implement judicial
directions in letter and spirit. Delay to
follow the said obligations would not be a
mere negligence but rather is a conscious
method of denial that erodes livelihoods
and dignity for the workers.
8 All. Abdul Qayoom Ansari & Anr. Vs. U.P. Industrial Co-Operative Association Ltd.
639

(39) In the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, without there being any
regularization scheme, issued directions for
the regularization of the said persons who
had worked for decades from the date the
High
Court
directed
a
fresh
recommendation by the Commission and a
fresh decision by the State on sanctioning
posts for the appellants.

(40) The instant case stands on a better
footing, inasmuch as the petitioners have
worked from the year 1984-85 till the year
2022, i.e., having rendered almost 37 to 38
years of continuous service and having
spent their entire working life working
under the respondents. The respondent
No.1 has been benefited from their service.
Despite having been retrenched in the year
2007, the writ Court, vide the order dated
22.08.2017, directed that the duration for
which the petitioners had worked was to be
taken into consideration while considering
the
case
of
the
petitioners
for
regularization. The respondents, in the
earlier rejection order, have admittedly
regularized the services of the persons who
were working under the respondent No.1
and by means of the impugned order, it has
been indicated that the petitioners had been
retrenched in the year 2007.

(41) Nothing would be more adverse
to the petitioners than the aforesaid grounds
which have been taken by the respondents
for their non-regularization, including the
ground of respondent No.1 being in a
precarious
financial
position.
Merely
because the respondent No.1 is in a
precarious financial position, the rights
which have accrued to the petitioners
cannot be negated and the continuous
working of 37 to 38 years cannot be written
off on the whims, fancies and caprices of
the respondent No.1. Even otherwise, the
earlier direction of the writ Court dated
18.04.2006, directing the respondent No.1
to
consider
the
petitioners
for
regularization, as well as the subsequent
order of the writ Court dated 22.08.2017,
have
attained
finality;
rather,
the
respondents have acquiesced to the said
orders.

(42)
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussions, the Court finds that in view of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dharam Singh
(supra), this is a fit case in which this
Court should exercise the extraordinary
powers vested under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

(43) Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued,
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
17.01.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1
to the petition. A writ of mandamus is
issued commanding the respondents to treat
the petitioners as regularized with effect
from the date of the orders of the writ Court
dated 18.04.2006. The respondents shall
also pay the retiral dues, including pension,
gratuity and other benefits, to petitioner
No.1 and the legal heirs of the petitioner
No.2 with effect from the date of
retirement.

(44) It is made clear that the
regularization order would only be for the
purpose of their retiral benefits and the
petitioners would not be entitled to any
other benefits for the aforesaid period of
service.

(45) The respondents shall comply
with this order within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
----------
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 8 ILRA 640
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 3925 of 2025

Amit Kumar Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sandeep Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vishakha Pande, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
(1) Entitlement of deputationist to remain as it
for a period as prescribed in the order of
deputation.
(2) Jurisdiction of borrowing department to
repatriate the deputationist to the Parent
department,
when
the
appointment
on
deputation was made by an order of Governor.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Repatriation - Right to
remain on deputation for the prescribed
period - Entitlement - Appointment on
deputation was made for three years by
an
order
of
Governor
-
Order
of
repatriation was passed by the borrowing
department i.e. U.P. Project Corporation
Limited before three years - Competence
of borrowing department to repatriate the
petitioner to the parent department was
challenged - Legality of order, calling it a
punitive order was also challenged as it
was passed without enquiry:
Held : Petitioner can be repatriated before
maximum period prescribed in order to his
parent department. There is no bar that
borrowing department cannot pass an order of
repatriation - U.P. Project Corporation Limited is
a separate entity and its orders are not passed
on behalf of Governor and since impugned order
is passed by Prabandh Nideshak of said
Corporation, who is the appropriate authority,
therefore, there is no ground to challenge the
impugned order that it was passed by an Officer
beyond its jurisdiction - Impugned order is not
an stigmatic order. There may be some reasons
that working of petitioner was not found
suitable by respondents but it does not reflect
from impugned order. Even no inquiry was
initiated by Corporation except few notices were
issued. Therefore, there is no legal basis to
challenge the impugned order on a ground, it
being a stigmatic order. [Paras 12, 13 and 14]
(E-1)

Case Law Cited
Ashok Kumar Pandey and others v. State of U.P.
and others, 2005 SCC OnLine All 600; Ratilal B.
Soni and others v. State of Gujarat and others,
AIR 1990 SC 1132; Kunal Nanda v. Union of
India and another, AIR 2000 SC 2076; Union of
India and another v. S. N. Maity and another,
2015(4) SCC 164 - referred to.

List of Keywords
Deputation; Repatriation; Parent department;
Borrowing
department;
Selection
process;
Indefeasible right; Vested right; Jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Order dated 20.02.2025 to repatriate the
petitioner to his parent department.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioner, an employee of Irrigation
and Water Resource Department, was sent
on deputation to U.P. Project Corporation
Limited vide order dated 07.02.2024. For
reference
said
order
is
reproduced
hereinafter:

"उत्तर प्रदेश शासन

कसंचाई एव जि संसािन अनुभाग-10

संख्या 23/2024/335/27-10001
(002)/5/2023-10