# Anand Prakash Tripathi & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 438
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-10
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 12082 of 2018
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-prakash-tripathi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53566
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra

Issue for consideration
Petitioners were employees of the UPSRTC,
appointed between September 1981 and May
1982-Employees who were appointed on nonpensionable posts in the corporation after
19.06.1981 and were promoted on pensionable
posts
in
the
department
even
between
1.06.1971 and 28.07.1982 were entitled to get
pension,
however,
petitioners
who
were
appointed between the said period i.e. after
19.06.1981 but before 28.07.1982 were held to
be not entitled for pension and as such it
creates two service conditions for the same
post.

Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh State Road Corporation
Employees (Other Than Officers) Service
Regualtion,1981-Pension-Validity of Cutoff Date-petitioners challenged a policy
decision after an unexplained delay of
nearly 18 years-Employees absorbed from
a pensionable establishment cannot be
equated with employees appointed under
a
non-pensionable
regime
after
the
Regulations came into force-Fixation of cutoff date 19.06.1981 for grant of pension to
employees of UPSRTC, corresponding to the
date
of
enforcement
of
the
UPSRTC
Employees(Other
than
officers)
Service
Regualtions,1981, held valid.

Held
The petitioners sought pension benefits, challenging
the Government order dated 23.10.2004, which
limited pension entitlement to employees appointed
between 01.06.1972 and 19.06.1981(the date when
the Service Regualtions,1981 came into force)-
Employees granted pension were already in service
before that date and later absorbed up to
28.07.1982, their inclusion was part of the absorption
process, not new recruitment-Petitioners were fresh
appointees, not absorbed employees, and thus
formed a separate class-The distinction was
reasonable and based on intelligible differentia,
satisfying Article 14-The court cited State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Sudhir Budakoti emhasizing that a
reasonable classification based on the source and
timing
of
appointment
does
not
violate
Article14-Court will not interefere unless the
classification is arbitrary-petition dismissed.(Para
11 to 16) (E-6)

Case law Cited
All Manipur Pensioners Assn. by its Secy. Vs St.
of Manipur & Ors (2020) 14 SCC 625, Ramesh
7 All. Anand Prakash Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
439
Chandra Sharma & Ors Vs St. of U.P. & Ors,
2023 (2) ADJ 223 SC, Dr. Surendra Pratap
Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & Anr, 2023 (2) ADJ 488,
UOI Vs SPS Vains (2008) 9 SCC 125, Writ (S S)
No. 2306 of 2004 Ram Dular & 13 Ors Vs St. of
U.P. & Ors decided on 25.08.2021, St. of U.K.
Vs Sudhir Budakoti (2022) 13 SCC 256-reffered
to.
List of Acts/Rules
Uttar
Pradesh
State
Road
Corporation
Employees
(Other
Than
Officers)
Service
Regulations, 1981.
List of Keywords
Pension entitlement; Cut-off date-19.06.1981UPSRTC;
U.P.
Government
roadways;
Absorbtion
;
Non-pensionable
cadre;
Reasonable classification; Hostile discrimination;
intelligible differentia; Rational nexus test;Delay
and laches; Recurring cause of action; Financial
implications in pension; Public Employment
Service benefits;Service Regulation,1981.
Case Arising From
Service Law: WRIT-A No. - 12082 of 2018
From the Judgment and order dated 10.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Anand Prakash Tripathi & 4 Ors. Vs. State
of U.P. & 5 Ors.

Appearances for the parties

Advs. for Petitioners:
Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Samir Sharma (Senior
Adv.)

Advs.for Respondents:
C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra

## Text

438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to defeat the ends of justice. It would be
appropriate to mention that "justice is not a
slave to format, but a servant of truth."

32. This Court is of the opinion that a
punishment order cannot be held invalid
merely on the ground that it does not
specifically mention the details of the show
cause notice or the written reply submitted
by the petitioner, if the substance of both is
duly considered and discussed in the order.
Unless there is a manifest procedural
irregularity or a clear illegality apparent on
the face of the record, such minor
omissions would not render the order
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

33. In view of above, no interference
is called for and the writ petition is
dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 438
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 12082 of 2018

Anand Prakash Tripathi & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Samir Sharma
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra

Issue for consideration
Petitioners were employees of the UPSRTC,
appointed between September 1981 and May
1982-Employees who were appointed on nonpensionable posts in the corporation after
19.06.1981 and were promoted on pensionable
posts
in
the
department
even
between
1.06.1971 and 28.07.1982 were entitled to get
pension,
however,
petitioners
who
were
appointed between the said period i.e. after
19.06.1981 but before 28.07.1982 were held to
be not entitled for pension and as such it
creates two service conditions for the same
post.

Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh State Road Corporation
Employees (Other Than Officers) Service
Regualtion,1981-Pension-Validity of Cutoff Date-petitioners challenged a policy
decision after an unexplained delay of
nearly 18 years-Employees absorbed from
a pensionable establishment cannot be
equated with employees appointed under
a
non-pensionable
regime
after
the
Regulations came into force-Fixation of cutoff date 19.06.1981 for grant of pension to
employees of UPSRTC, corresponding to the
date
of
enforcement
of
the
UPSRTC
Employees(Other
than
officers)
Service
Regualtions,1981, held valid.

Held
The petitioners sought pension benefits, challenging
the Government order dated 23.10.2004, which
limited pension entitlement to employees appointed
between 01.06.1972 and 19.06.1981(the date when
the Service Regualtions,1981 came into force)-
Employees granted pension were already in service
before that date and later absorbed up to
28.07.1982, their inclusion was part of the absorption
process, not new recruitment-Petitioners were fresh
appointees, not absorbed employees, and thus
formed a separate class-The distinction was
reasonable and based on intelligible differentia,
satisfying Article 14-The court cited State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Sudhir Budakoti emhasizing that a
reasonable classification based on the source and
timing
of
appointment
does
not
violate
Article14-Court will not interefere unless the
classification is arbitrary-petition dismissed.(Para
11 to 16) (E-6)

Case law Cited
All Manipur Pensioners Assn. by its Secy. Vs St.
of Manipur & Ors (2020) 14 SCC 625, Ramesh
7 All. Anand Prakash Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
439
Chandra Sharma & Ors Vs St. of U.P. & Ors,
2023 (2) ADJ 223 SC, Dr. Surendra Pratap
Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & Anr, 2023 (2) ADJ 488,
UOI Vs SPS Vains (2008) 9 SCC 125, Writ (S S)
No. 2306 of 2004 Ram Dular & 13 Ors Vs St. of
U.P. & Ors decided on 25.08.2021, St. of U.K.
Vs Sudhir Budakoti (2022) 13 SCC 256-reffered
to.
List of Acts/Rules
Uttar
Pradesh
State
Road
Corporation
Employees
(Other
Than
Officers)
Service
Regulations, 1981.
List of Keywords
Pension entitlement; Cut-off date-19.06.1981UPSRTC;
U.P.
Government
roadways;
Absorbtion
;
Non-pensionable
cadre;
Reasonable classification; Hostile discrimination;
intelligible differentia; Rational nexus test;Delay
and laches; Recurring cause of action; Financial
implications in pension; Public Employment
Service benefits;Service Regulation,1981.
Case Arising From
Service Law: WRIT-A No. - 12082 of 2018
From the Judgment and order dated 10.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Anand Prakash Tripathi & 4 Ors. Vs. State
of U.P. & 5 Ors.

Appearances for the parties

Advs. for Petitioners:
Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Samir Sharma (Senior
Adv.)

Advs.for Respondents:
C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra

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

1. Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners and Sri Ayush Mishra, holding
brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Misra learned
counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioners (5 in number) were
appointed at Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation by respective orders
dated 06.09.1981, 27.03.1982, 22.05.1982
and 26.09.1981. Some of the petitioners
were already retired when this writ petition
was filed in the year 2018 and remaining
petitioners
must
have
retired
during
pendency of this writ petition.

3. They were well aware from very
inception of recruitment that they were not
benefited with any pension scheme still
they have approached this Court at the fag
end of their respective service, when some
of petitioners have already got retired with
following prayers :-

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of CERTIORARI,
calling for the record and quashing the
impugned Government Order No. dated
1470-30-2-2004-218/96 dated 23.10.2004
to the extent it has fixed the cut-off date i.e.
19.06.1981, providing for payment of
pension to only those employees who were
appointed on those posts of the UPSRTC,
which
were
pensionable
in
U.
P.
Government
Roadways,
between
01.06.1972 to the date of coming into force
of the Service Regulations, 1981, i. e.
19.06.1981.

ii) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding
the opposite parties to treat the cut-off date
as 28.07.1982, instead of 19.06.1981, and
accordingly pay the pension and other
retirement benefits to the petitioners
consequent upon their retirement from
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
service
after
attaining
the
age
of
superannuation of 60 years and pay the
same as and when it falls due, including
arrears thereof along with interest at the
current market rate, within a specified
period of two months."

4. Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners
argued at length and his submissions and
arguments on facts and law are briefly
mentioned hereinafter :-

(a) Initially the transport services
in the State of U.P. were provided by a
department
namely,
U.P.
Government
Roadways and thereafter U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation was created with
effect from 01.06.1972 under Section 3 of
Road Transport Act, 1950.

(b) The employees of erstwhile
U.P. Government Employees Transport
Corporation, U.P. Government Roadways
were treated to be on deputation to the
Corporation.

(c) The process of framing
service regulation were finally crystallized
in the year 1981, viz Uttar Pradesh State
Road Corporation Employees (Other Than
Officers)
Service
Regulation,
1981,
notified in U.P. Gazette dated 19.06.1981.

(d)
In
pursuance
of
said
regulations
options
were
invited
for
absorption and erstwhile employees were
absorbed with effect from 28.07.1982.

(e) The Board of Director of
Corporation in its 124th meeting held on
29.10.1992 granted approval of payment
for pension to all those employees who
were appointed between 01.06.1972 upto
28.07.1982
on
posts
which
were
pensionable in the U.P. Government Board
Roadways.

(f)
Similarly
a
G.O.
dated
19.08.1993 was passed that the employees
of erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways,
who had worked on pensionable post prior
to their absorption in the Corporation (i.e.
with effect from 28.07.1982) would be
entitled for payment of pension subject to
certain conditions. Similarly a circular
dated 20.04.1999 was also passed.

(g) On 23.10.2004, a Government
order
was
passed,
whereby
State
Government granted approval for payment
of pension to those employee who were
appointed in Corporation (on posts which
which
were
pensionable
in
U.P.
Government
Roadways)
between
01.06.1972 to date when the Service
Regulation, 1981 came into force i.e.
19.06.1981 and since all the petitioners
were appointed subsequent to the aforesaid
date, therefore, they were not entitled for
pension. The aforesaid cut off dates are
essentially impugned in present writ
petition after many years i.e. 18 years.

5. Learned Senior Counsel has further
vehemently
argued
that
aforesaid
classification
amounts
to
hostile
discrimination and vehemently submitted
that all employees who were appointed on
non-pensionable posts in the corporation
after 19.06.1981 and were promoted on
pensionable posts in the department even
between 01.06.1971 and 28.07.1982 were
entitled to get pension, however, petitioners
who were appointed between the said
period i.e. after 19.06.1981 but before
28.07.1982 were held to be not entitled for
pension and as such it creates two service
conditions for the same post, therefore, it
7 All. Anand Prakash Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
441
was argued that it amounts to hostile
discrimination. The cut-off date ought to be
28.07.1982

6.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
for
petitioner submits that twin test of a
classification to be reasonable are that
classification must be based on intelligible
differentia which must have a reasonable
nexus to the object sought to be achieved,
however, both parameters were missing in
present case and he placed reliance on
judgment
passed
in
All
Manipur
Pensioners Association by its Secretary
Versus State of Manipur and others
(2020) 14 SCC 625, Ramesh Chandra
Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2023 (2) ADJ 223 SC, Dr.
Surendra Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
and another, 2023 (2) ADJ 488, Union of
India v SPS Vains (2008) 9 SCC 125,
Writ (S S) No. 2306 of 2004 Ram Dular
and 13 others vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 25.08.2021.

7. Learned Senior Counsel also
referred that Employee Service Regulation,
1981, notified on 09.06.1981 are applied
uniformly to existing employees i.e. those
even appointed prior to 19.06.1981 and
also on existing employees i.e. petitioners.
He further submits that even though Regulation
39(1) applies to all employees of the
Corporation appointed after 01.06.1972, yet the
G.O. dated 20.10.2004 grants pension to
employees of the Corporation appointed from
01.06.1972 till 19.06.1981. Thus, the cut-off
date 19.06.1981 is discriminatory and in teeth
of Regulation 39(1) read with Regulation 4(2).

8. Learned Senior Counsel in order to
defend that there is no delay in approaching this
Court has placed reliance on Asgar Vs. LIC,
(2016) 13 SCC 797 that in case of recurring
service claims i.e. pension, mere delay alleged
will not be fatal as it does not have any adverse
effect on third party rights.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of corporation submits that not only
petitioners have approached this Court at a very
belated stage despite they were well aware
about the impugned notification passed in the
year 2004 and since admittedly all petitioners
were appointed after cut off date i.e. date when
regulations of 1981 came into force, therefore,
they are not entitled for pension. The petitioners
are of a group which were appointed after the
regulations of 1981 came into force whereas the
other employees were already entered into
service much prior to the appointment of
petitioners, therefore, they form a separate
group and since they were born in a
pensionable cadre or post, therefore, pension
was protected even on promotion, their source
of appointment were different, therefore, there
is no arbitrariness. The classification has
intelligible differentia as well as that matter of
pension has financial implication, therefore, the
same may not be granted contrary to existing
provisions. Petitioners are trying to create an
artificial similarity with the erstwhile employee
who were promoted between 19.06.19811 to
27.07.1982

10. Heard counsel for parties and perused
the record.

11.
As
referred
above,
all
the
petitioners were appointed after cut off date
i.e. 19.06.1981, when the Uttar Pradesh
State
Road
Transport
Corporation
employees (Other Than Officers Service
Regulation, 1981), came into force with
effect from 19.06.1981.

12.
Petitioners
are
essentially
aggrieved that employees of erstwhile U.P.
Government Roadways who were absorbed
till 28.07.1982 i.e. after the cut off date as
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
well as promoted on post where petitioners
were appointed were granted pension,
however, petitioners who were directly
appointed to the said post between the said
period i.e. 19.06.1981 to 27.07.1982 were
not granted pension.

13. It is not under much dispute that
said employees were appointed much prior
to petitioners between 01.06.1972 to
19.06.1981 before the regulations of 1981
came
into
force
with
effect
from
19.06.1981. A process was initiated to
absorb such employees with the Roadways
Corporation and for that purpose, date was
extended and they were finally absorbed
with effect from 28.07.1982, whereas
petitioners
are
appointed
by
fresh
recruitment process and they were not gone
through the process of absorption.

14. The said process of absorption has
no relation even remotely with the
appointments of petitioners which were
made subsequently as well as said erstwhile
employees were given benefit of pension
probably on a ground that they were born
in a pensionable cadre or post, therefore,
promotion of some of employees on basis
of their early service on post of which the
petitioners were subsequently appointed
also become entitle for pension.

15. As referred above, employees who
were appointed between 01.06.1972 to
19.06.1981 on pensionable posts were
declared to be entitled for pension and
petitioners being subsequent to the said
date were not entitled for pension. The
benefit was granted to such old employee
whose absorption was delayed and finally
date was extended upto 28.07.1982. There
is no ambiguity in the contents of said
notification. The classification is based on
two
separate
groups
which
has
no
interconnection between them. It is not
under dispute that petitioners were born in
a non pensionable post or cadre.

16. The Court is placing reliance on
following paragraphs of State of State of
Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, (2022)
13 SCC 256 :-

"Classification test & Policy
Decisions of the State

14. A mere differential treatment
on its own cannot be termed as an
"anathema
to
Article
14
of
the
Constitution". When there is a reasonable
basis for a classification adopted by taking
note
of
the
exigencies
and
diverse
situations, the Court is not expected to
insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid
and pedantic view as against a pragmatic
one.

15. Such a discrimination would
not be termed as arbitrary as the object of
the classification itself is meant for
providing benefits to an identified group of
persons who form a class of their own.
When
the
differentiation
is
clearly
distinguishable with adequate demarcation
duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets
satisfied. Social, revenue and economic
considerations are certainly permissible
parameters in classifying a particular
group. Thus, a valid classification is
nothing but a valid discrimination. That
being the position, there can never be an
injury to the concept of equality enshrined
under the Constitution, not being an
inflexible doctrine.

16. A larger latitude in dealing
with a challenge to the classification is
mandated on the part of the Court when
introduced either by the Legislature or the
7 All. Kanchan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
443
Executive as the case may be. There is no
way, courts could act like appellate
authorities especially when a classification
is introduced by way of a policy decision
clearly
identifying
the
group
of
beneficiaries by analysing the relevant
materials

17. The question as to whether a
classification is reasonable or not is to be
answered
on
the
touchstone
of
a
reasonable, common man's approach,
keeping in mind the avowed object behind
it. If the right to equality is to be termed as
a genus, a right to non-discrimination
becomes a specie. When two identified
groups are not equal, certainly they cannot
be treated as a homogeneous group. A
reasonable classification thus certainly
would not injure the equality enshrined
under Article 14 when there exists an
intelligible differentia between two groups
having a rational relation to the object.
Therefore, an interference would only be
called for on the Court being convinced
that the classification causes inequality
among similarly placed persons. The role
of the court being restrictive, generally, the
task is best left to the authorities
concerned. When a classification is made
on the recommendation made by a body of
experts constituted for the purpose, Courts
will have to be more wary of entering into
the said arena as its interference would
amount to substituting its views, a process
which is best avoided.

18. As long as the classification
does not smack of inherent arbitrariness
and conforms to justice and fair play, there
may not be any reason to interfere with it.
It is the wisdom of the other Wings which is
required to be respected except when a
classification is bordering on arbitrariness,
artificial
difference
and
itself
being
discriminatory. A decision made sans the
aforesaid situation cannot be tested with
either a suspicious or a microscopic eye.
Good faith and intention are to be
presumed unless the contrary exists. One
has to keep in mind that the role of the
Court is on the illegality involved as
against the governance."

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
Court is of the view that there is no
arbitrariness in the action of respondents.
An artificial similarity has no legal basis,
therefore, the prayer in this writ petition is
rejected and accordingly, instant writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 443
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 12790 of 2024

Kanchan Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anand Prakash Paul, C.S.C., Pradeep
Kumar Tripathi

Issue for consideration
The key issue involved in this case whether the
impugned dismissal order dated june21,2024,
passed
by
the
Vice
Chairman,
Kanpur
development authority, imposing the major
penalty of dismissal from service on the
petitioner
is
legally
sustainable-Petitioner
charged with the serious misconduct for
allegedly preparing duplicate files and forged