# Devdutt v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 966
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-21
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 26709 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devdutt-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48614
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Voluntary retirement -
Pension and Retiral benefits - Civil Service
Regulations: Article 418(A) - U.P. Nagar
Palika
Non
Centralized
Services
Retirement Benefits Rules, 1984 - If an
employee
has
completed
qualifying
service for getting retirement benefits and
has resigned thereafter, he cannot be
denied retiral benefits. His resignation
would amount to voluntary retirement.
(Para 17, 21)

This court finds the only issue to be decided in
this case as to whether the petitioner's
resignation should be taken to be a
voluntary retirement or a resignation right
from service so as to disentitle him to the
retirement benefit under 1984 Rules. (Para
13)

It is within the authority and discretion
of an employer to decide as to whether
to treat a resignation letter as voluntary
retirement or not and once the employer
has treated resignation to be for voluntary
retirement, there seems to be no scope for
any other authority to take a different stand.
(Para 21)

In the present case, the petitioner's employer
has rightly treated the letter of resignation as
voluntary
retirement
and
so
made
recommendation for payment of retirement
benefits including pension. The qualifying
service for pension to the employees of the
non centralised service of a local body has
come to be defined vide Rule 2(ढ़)(ण)(त)
defining the same of Uttar Pradesh Nagar
Palika Non Centralised Retirement Benefits
Regulations, 1984 runs as under. (Para 24)

As per the provisions, an employee if has
attained the age of 50 years and has spent 20
years of service, he would be entitled to seek
voluntary retirement and so consequential
benefits. The petitioner at the time of
resigning
from
service
had
already
attained 50 years of age and had also
completed more than 20 years of service
and
so
he
could
seek
voluntary
retirement and consequential benefits.
(Para 25)

B.
Difference
between
Voluntary
Retirement and Resignation - Voluntary
retirement
would
also
be
a
case
of
resignation. The only difference is that in case
of voluntary retirement an employee intends
to relinquish the job for his attaining
advanced age, illness etc. and shows his
inability
to
continue
to
serve
the
establishment whereas in case of pure
resignation an employee intends to leave the
job either for the reason he has got an
attractive employment or that he is facing
hardships at the end of the employer and
circumstances have forced him/her to resign.
The intention of an employee can be gathered
from the language the resignation letter as
the contents of the letter and the language in
which
it
is
couched
will
only
be
a
determinative factor as to its nature and
character. (Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:
5 All. Devdutt Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
967

## Text

966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. The writ petition stands allowed
in the manner indicated above.
----------
(2022)05ILR A966
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD 21.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

WRIT A No. 26709 of 2010

Devdutt ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant
Sri Naveen Srivastava, Sri Kashif Gilani, Sri
Navin Kumar, Ms. Jigyasa Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri Manu
Saxena

A. Service Law - Voluntary retirement -
Pension and Retiral benefits - Civil Service
Regulations: Article 418(A) - U.P. Nagar
Palika
Non
Centralized
Services
Retirement Benefits Rules, 1984 - If an
employee
has
completed
qualifying
service for getting retirement benefits and
has resigned thereafter, he cannot be
denied retiral benefits. His resignation
would amount to voluntary retirement.
(Para 17, 21)

This court finds the only issue to be decided in
this case as to whether the petitioner's
resignation should be taken to be a
voluntary retirement or a resignation right
from service so as to disentitle him to the
retirement benefit under 1984 Rules. (Para
13)

It is within the authority and discretion
of an employer to decide as to whether
to treat a resignation letter as voluntary
retirement or not and once the employer
has treated resignation to be for voluntary
retirement, there seems to be no scope for
any other authority to take a different stand.
(Para 21)

In the present case, the petitioner's employer
has rightly treated the letter of resignation as
voluntary
retirement
and
so
made
recommendation for payment of retirement
benefits including pension. The qualifying
service for pension to the employees of the
non centralised service of a local body has
come to be defined vide Rule 2(ढ़)(ण)(त)
defining the same of Uttar Pradesh Nagar
Palika Non Centralised Retirement Benefits
Regulations, 1984 runs as under. (Para 24)

As per the provisions, an employee if has
attained the age of 50 years and has spent 20
years of service, he would be entitled to seek
voluntary retirement and so consequential
benefits. The petitioner at the time of
resigning
from
service
had
already
attained 50 years of age and had also
completed more than 20 years of service
and
so
he
could
seek
voluntary
retirement and consequential benefits.
(Para 25)

B.
Difference
between
Voluntary
Retirement and Resignation - Voluntary
retirement
would
also
be
a
case
of
resignation. The only difference is that in case
of voluntary retirement an employee intends
to relinquish the job for his attaining
advanced age, illness etc. and shows his
inability
to
continue
to
serve
the
establishment whereas in case of pure
resignation an employee intends to leave the
job either for the reason he has got an
attractive employment or that he is facing
hardships at the end of the employer and
circumstances have forced him/her to resign.
The intention of an employee can be gathered
from the language the resignation letter as
the contents of the letter and the language in
which
it
is
couched
will
only
be
a
determinative factor as to its nature and
character. (Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:
5 All. Devdutt Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
967
1. Sudhir Chandra Sarkar Vs Tata Iron & Steel
Co. Ltd. & ors., (1984) 3 SCC 369 (Para 16)

2. P.S. Bhargav Vs U.O.I., (1983) 1 SCC 385
(Para 17)

3. Deokinandan Prasad Vs St. of Bihar, (1979) 2
SCC 330 (Para 17)

4. Sheel Kumar Jain Vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. & ors., (2011) 2 SCC 197 (Para 22)

5. Shashikala Devi Vs C.B.I., (2014) 16 SCC 26
(Para 23)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
24.01.2007, passed by Assistant Director
(Pension)
Local
Fund
Accounts
Examination Department, U.P. Sangam
Palace VI Floor, Civil Lines, Allahabad.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Jigyasa Singh, learned
Advocate holding brief of Sri Navin
Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for respondents no.2 & 3 and Ms. Monika
Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 4
and perused the record.

2. Affidavit filed today on behalf of
respondent nos. 2 & 3, in compliance of
earlier order dated 30.03.2022, is taken on
record.

3. The petitioner before this Court
claims to be a retired employee of the local
body namely Nagar Palika Parishad,
Khurja, Bulandshahr on the plea that after
serving the Nagar Palika for nearly 32
years and six months he opted for voluntary
retirement by submitting his application
dated 22.12.2000 which was accepted by
the
Executive
Officer,
Nagar
Palika
Parishad,
Khurja
vide
order
dated
26.12.2000.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is
that in spite of his voluntary resignation
being accepted by the Nagar Palika
Parishad concerned and his papers for post
retirement dues being duly forwarded by
the Executive Officer on 28.09.2006, the
respondent no.4 vide order impugned dated
24.01.2007 has rejected the claim of the
petitioner for pension and other retiral
benefits on the ground that petitioner
having resigned from service, applying the
provisions as contained in Article 418(A)
of Civil Service Regulations petitioner
would not be entitled to retirement dues.

5. The contention advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner is two
fold: firstly, Article 418(A) of the Civil
Service Regulations could not be applicable
to the employees of the non centralised
service of the local body as their retiral
benefits are governed under the UP Nagar
Palika
Non
Centralised
Services
Retirement
Benefits
Rules,
1984
(hereinafter referred as 'the 1984 Rules')
and under the said rules, the pensionable
service as defined Article 368 has been
only made applicable. It is argued thus, that
Rules of 1984 being special rules would
override the general law applicable to
pensionary benefits and other retiral
benefits provided for under the Civil
Service Regulations; and secondly, by no
stretch of imagination, the resignation
submitted
by
the
petitioner
dated
22.12.2020 can be treated as resignation
from
service
and
not
a
voluntary
retirement.

6. It is argued that the option for
voluntary
retirement
or
compulsory
retirement from service almost stand on
similar parameters of discretion. While in
case of compulsory retirement it is the
establishment that decides the utility of an
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employee to continue him in service
whereas in case of voluntary retirement the
employee himself determines his utility to
continue in service so as to serve the
establishment.

7. It is argued that looking to the
grounds assigned in the letter of resignation
dated 22.12.2000, it is quite apparent that
the petitioner was ailing and hence he
wanted to tender his resignation but the at
the same time looking to the condition of
family and need of regular income to meet
the requirement, he wanted his son to be
given employment and therefore, it is
submitted that this letter should be taken to
be the one indicating the intention of the
petitioner to take voluntary retirement from
service.

8. It is also argued that since the
petitioner had already rendered 32 years
and six months of service and was on the
verge of his retirement, he was entitled to
opt for voluntary retirement as per the
relevant provisions of 1984 Rules.

9. Besides above, it is argued that if it
is to be taken as a resignation, it was a
conditional one and the respondents should
have turned it down in the event they were
not offering employment to his son. But
since the respondent in his wisdom found it
to be a case where the petitioner was not
health wise in a position to serve the
establishment, it accepted the resignation.
Thus, it would be a case according to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, of
voluntary
retirement
opted
by
the
petitioner.

10. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for the local body has argued that
the local body had treated the petitioner's
resignation
to
be
one
of
voluntary
retirement and that is why his claim for
retirement benefits under the 1984 Rules
were forwarded to the Director, Local
Bodies on 28.09.2006 and it is the Director,
Local Bodies who rejected the claim of the
petitioner.

11. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of respondent no.4 in which vide
paragraph 7a stand has been taken that as
per 1984 Rules since the petitioner had
resigned from service, he was not entitled
for retirement benefits. It is pleaded that the
Rules very clearly state that those who
resign from service would not be entitled to
retirement benefits.

12. Yet another plea has been taken in
the counter affidavit that in view of Article
418(A) of the Civil Service Regulations,
since resignation from a public service
which entails forfeiture of the past service,
such an employee cannot be held entitled to
retirement benefits. Except for these two
paragraphs in the counter affidavit, nothing
has been stated to defend the order.

13. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and their arguments
raised across the bar, this court finds the
only issue to be decided in this case as to
whether the petitioner's resignation should
be taken to be a voluntary retirement or a
resignation right from service so as to
disentitle him to the retirement benefit
under 1984 Rules.

14. In so far as retirement benefits are
concerned under the 1984 Rules, I find
merit in the submission advanced by
counsel for the petitioner that except for
Article 368 which provides for eligible
service period for the purposes of pension,
no
other
provision
has
been
made
applicable. This rule being specially framed
for the employees of local bodies in the
5 All. Devdutt Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
969
State belonging to non centralised services,
it would certainly override any other
general law that provides for eligibility
criteria for the purposes of pension to an
employee of any other establishment or a
government servant. The relevant rules of
1984 also provide for pension in case of
voluntary retirement. However, the Court
does not find any provision under the
Rules, 1984 which would specify as to
when a case would be of resignation so as
to disentitle an employee to the retirement
dues.

15. On a repeated query being made
to the Additional Chief Standing counsel,
she has not been able to point out any such
provision, nor she could defend paragraph
9 of the affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent no.4 according to which as per
Article 418(A) of the Civil Service
Regulations petitioner would not be entitled
to retirement benefits which otherwise is
applicable in case of voluntary retirement
under the 1984 Rules.

16. In case of Sudhir Chandra
Sarkar vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. &ors
(1984) 3 SCC 369, the Supreme Court had
an occasion to consider the claim of
retirement benefits like gratuity etc to an
employee who had simply tendered his
resignation
which
was
accepted
unconditionally and vide paragraph 7 it
held thus:

"7.The
contention
of
the
respondent is that the plaintiff did not retire
from service but he left the service of the
Company by resigning his post. This aspect
to some extent agitated the mind of the High
Court. It may be dealt with first. It is not only
not in dispute, but is in fact conceded that the
plaintiff did render continuous service from
December 31, 1929 till August 31, 1959. On
exact computation, the plaintiff rendered
service for 29 years and 8 months. Rule 6(a)
which prescribed the eligibility criterion for
payment of gratuity provides that every
permanent uncovenanted employee of the
Company whether paid on monthly, weekly
or daily basis will be eligible for retiring
gratuity which shall be equal to half a month
salary or wages for every completed year of
continuous service subject to a maximum of
20 months salary or wages in all provided
that when an employee dies, retires or is
discharged under Rule 11(2)(ii) and (iii)
before he has served the Company for a
continuous period of 15 years he shall be
paid a gratuity at the rate therein mentioned.
The expression 'retirement' has been defined
in Rule 1 (g) to mean 'the termination of
service by reason of any cause other than
removal by discharge due to misconduct'. It is
admitted that the plaintiff was a permanent
uncovenanted employee of the Company paid
on monthly basis and he rendered service for
over 29 years and his service came to an end
by reason of his tendering resignation which
was unconditionally accepted. It is not
suggested that he was removed by discharge
due
to
misconduct.
Unquestionably,
therefore, the plaintiff retired from service
because by the letter Annexure 'B' dated
August 26, 1959, the resignation tendered by
the plaintiff as per his letter dated July, 27,
1959 was accepted and he was released from
his service with effect from September
1,1959. The termination of service was thus
on account of resignation of the plaintiff
being accepted by the respondent. The
plaintiff has, within the meaning of the
expression, thus retired from service of the
respondent an he is qualified for payment of
gratuity in terms of Rule 6.

17.

The
Apex
Court
though
interpreted the relevant rules applicable in
that case but in pith and substance the ratio
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is that if a person has completed qualifying
service for the retiral benefits purposes, the
same should not be denied. Referring to the
judgment in case of P.S. Bhargav vs.
Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 385 and
another
judgment
in
the
case
of
Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar
(1979) 2 SCC 330, the Supreme Court vide
paragraph 18 had held thus:

"18. For centuries the courts
swung in favour of the view that pension is
either a bounty or a gratuitous payment for
local service rendered depending upon the
sweet will or grace of the employer not
claimable as a right and therefore, no right
to pension can be enforced through court.
This view held the field and a suit to
recover pension was held not maintainable.
With the modern notions of social justice
and social security, concept of pension
underwent a radical change and it is now
well-settled that pension is a right and
payment of it does not depend upon the
discretion of the employer, nor can it be
denied at the sweet will or fancy of the
employer. Deokinandan Prasad v. State of
Bihar & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v.
Iqbal Singh and D.S. Nakara & Ors. v.
Union of India. If pension which is the
retiral benefit as a measure of social
security can be recovered through civil
suit, we see no justification in treating
gratuity on a different footing. Pension and
gratuity in the matter of retiral benefits and
for recovering the same must be put on
par."

18. Coming to the issue as to whether
the resignation of the petitioner dated
22.12.2000
be
taken
as
voluntary
retirement or resignation right from service,
one factual aspect of the matter is that
petitioner was almost on the verge of
retirement as hardly a fortnight was left
from the date of retirement when petitioner
was to attain age of superannuation and this
acquires significance and must be taken
into account. At this stage advanced age, if
an employee has requested for offering an
employment to his son and he wanted to
resign as he was not in a condition to serve
the establishment being not healthwise
well, the only intention seems to be of
voluntary relinquishment of the job.

19. In the letter accepting the
resignation of the petitioner, it is mentioned
that petitioner had requested for giving
appointment to his son but it only indicates
that resignation of the petitioner has been
accepted.

20. Voluntary retirement would also
be a case of resignation. The only
difference is that in case of voluntary
retirement
an
employee
intends
to
relinquish
the
job
for
his
attaining
advanced age, illness etc. and shows his
inability
to
continue
to
serve
the
establishment whereas in case of pure
resignation an employee intends to leave
the job either for the reason he has got an
attractive employment or that he is facing
hardships at the end of the employer and
circumstances have forced him/her to
resign. The intention of an employee can be
gathered from the language the resignation
letter as the contents of the letter and the
language in which it is couched will only
be a determinative factor as to its nature
and character.

21. On the above analysis, I find that in the
case in hand the language of the resignation
letter to be indicative of it being meant for
voluntary retirement and exercising my
equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, I find it to be
harsh if I negate the claim of the petitioner
5 All. Devdutt Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
971
to treat the resignation as voluntary
retirement from service by taking it to be
resignation simpliciter. Besides above, I
find that employer himself had accepted the
resignation of the petitioner as that of
voluntary retirement and that is why his
papers were forwarded for post retirement
benefits including pension. In my view, it it
within the authority and discretion of an
employer to decide as to whether to treat a
resignation letter as voluntary retirement or
not and once the employer has treated
resignation to be for voluntary retirement,
there seems to be no scope for any other
authority
to
take
a
different
stand.
Moreover, if an employee has completed
qualifying service for getting retirement
benefits and has resigned thereafter, he
cannot be denied retiral benefits. His
resignation would amount to voluntary
retirement.

22. In the case of Sheel Kumar Jain
vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
(2011) 2 SCC 197, the Court had an
occasion
to
interpret
the
letter
of
resignation and vide paragraphs 25 & 26 it
held thus:

"25. Para 22 of the 1995 Pension
Scheme states that the resignation of an
employee
from
the
service
of
the
corporation or a company shall entail
forfeiture of his entire past service and
consequently he shall not qualify for
pensionary benefits, but does not define the
term "resignation". Under sub-para (1) of
Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme, an
employee, who has completed 20 years of
qualifying service, may by giving notice of
not less than 90 days in writing to the
appointing authority retire from service
and under sub-para (2) of Para 30 of the
1995 Pension Scheme, the notice of
voluntary
retirement
shall
require
acceptance by the appointing authority.
Since
"voluntary
retirement"
unlike
"resignation" does not entail forfeiture of
past services and instead qualifies for
pension, an employee to whom Para 30 of
the 1995 Pension Scheme applies cannot be
said to have "resigned" from service.

26. In the facts of the present
case, we find that the appellant had
completed 20 years of qualifying service
and had given notice of not less than 90
days in writing to the appointing authority
of his intention to leave the service and the
appointing authority had accepted notice of
the appellant and relieved him from
service. Hence, Para 30 of the 1995
Pension Scheme applied to the appellant
even though in his letter dated 16-9-1991 to
the General Manager of Respondent 1
Company he had used the word "resign"."

23. Very recently in the case of
Shashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India
(2014 )16 SCC 260, the Apex Court had
relied upon the judgments referred to above
and held the petitioner entitled to the
retirement benefits treating the letter of
resignation as a voluntary retirement by the
employee. However, the question of
curtailment of notice period was allowed at
the discretion of the authority vide
paragraph 19 had held thus:

"19. In the result this appeal
succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
impugned order passed by the High Court
is, hereby, set aside and the writ petition
filed by the deceased-employee allowed
with a direction to the respondent-bank to
treat letter dated 8th October, 2007 as a
notice for voluntary retirement of the
employee and for curtailment for three
months notice period. Depending upon the
view the competent authority may take on
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the question of curtailment of the notice
period and/or deduction of three months
salary from out of the retiral benefits of the
deceased-employee,
the
deceasedemployee's claim for payment of retiral
benefits due under the relevant rules
including pension shall be processed and
released in favour of the appellant-widow
as expeditiously as possible but not later
than six months from the date a copy of this
order is served upon the bank. In the event
of the bank's failure to comply with the
directions within six months as indicated
above, the amount payable to the employee
and after his death his widow, shall start
earning interest @ 10% p.a. from the date
the period of six months expires. The
parties are left to bear their own costs."

24. In the case in hand, therefore, I
find that the petitioner's employer has
rightly treated the letter of resignation as
voluntary
retirement
and
so
made
recommendation for payment of retirement
benefits including pension. The qualifying
service for pension to the employees of the
non centralised service of a local body has
come to be defined vide Rule 2(ढ)(ण)(त)
defining the same of Uttar Pradesh Nagar
Palika Non Centralised Retirement Benefits
Regulations, 1984 runs as under:

"2- जब तक भवषय या सूंदिश मे कोई बात
प्रभतक ल न हो, इस भवभनयमावली मे,-

भनवायशतः या स्वेच्छ से सेवाभनवृत्त होने पर
या स्थायी पद या स्थायी भनयुन्धक्त की समान्धप् पर, यभद
पदधारी की भनयुन्धक्त भकसी अन्य पद पर न की जाय या
उसे उसके प वशवत्ता मौभलक पद पर, यभद कोई हो,
प्रत्यावभतशत करना सूंिव न हो, सेवामुक्त होने से हैः

लिपण्णी:- सेवा से स्वेच्छ से
सेवालिवृत्त का तात्पयग ऐसी सेवालिवृत्त से है
ि ५० विग की आयु प्राप्त कििे के पश्चात २०
विग की अहगकािी सेवा पूिी कि िेिे पि ह ।

(ण) सेवाभनवृभत्त पेंर्न का तात्पयश ऐसी
पेंर्न से है जो ऐसे पदधारी को स्वीकृत की
जाय, भजसे अभधवाभषशता की आयु प्राप् होने के
प वश सेवाभनवृभत्त होने की अनुझ दी जाय और
इसके अन्तगशत ऐसी पेंर्न िी है जो ऐसे पदधारी
को स्वीकृत की जाय भजससे अभधवाभषशता की
आयु प्राप् करने के प वश सेवा-भनवृत्त होने की
अपेक्षा की जायः

(त) अभधवाभषता की पेंर्न का तात्पयश
भकसी ऐसे पदधारी को स्वीकृत पेंर्न से है जो
सुसूंगत भवभनयमोूं के अधीन भवभर्ष्ट आयु प्राप्
होने पर सेवा से भनवृत होने का हकदार हो।"

(emphasis added)

25 . From a bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions, an employee if has
attained the age of 50 years and has spent
20 years of service, he would be entitled to
seek
voluntary
retirement
and
so
consequential benefits. The petitioner at the
time of resigning from service had already
attained 50 years of age and had also
completed more than 20 years of service
and so he could seek voluntary retirement
and consequential benefits.

26. In view of the above, therefore,
treating the petitioner's resignation as
voluntary retirement from service and I
hold him to be entitled to retirement dues.

27. Accordingly, the order passed by
the Assistant Director (Pension), Local
Fund
and
Accounts
Examination
Department,
U.P.
dated
24.01.2007
(Annexure 6 to the writ petition) is hereby
quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to
5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
973
retirement benefits as per the rules. Since
petitioner has been made to suffer for more
than 2 decades not for very genuine reasons
but for this long drawn litigation, he is also
held entitled to 7% simple interest over and
above the retiral dues to be calculated as a
consequence of the order being passed
today. The necessary exercise shall be done
by the respondent concerned within a
period of three months including the
calculation of interest and the same be paid
to
the
petitioner
within
six
weeks
thereafter.

28. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, petition stands allowed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A973
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED LUCKNOW 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

WRIT A No. 232 of 2022

Vijay Kumar Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant
Sri Manish Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Ran Vijay
Singh

A. Service Law - Selection/Recruitment -
U.P. Recruitment to Services (Age Limit)
(Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2012 - Rule 6
- U.P. Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006 - Rule
3(n), 10, 14 - U.P. Subordinate Services
Selection Commission Act, 2014; U.P.
General Clauses Act, 1904 - Section
4(50).

The
PET
examination
is
a
general
examination and is not held for any
specific service under any service rules. It
is conducted under the U.P. Subordinate
Services Selection Commission Act, 2014
(Commission Act). It does not make any
person entitled for any post whatsoever,
but, is only a preliminary test taken for
permitting a person to apply for the ClassIII vacancies going to be advertised
thereafter, till the said PET examination
result is in force. The Commission advertised
and initiates the selection process under
different service rules. It was open for the State
Government as well as for the Commission to
proceed or not to proceed for the selection of
the Revenue Lekhpal under their service rules.
(Para 7)

In case of non advertisement of the said
vacancies petitioner had no vested rights.
The right vested in the petitioner after
clearing PET examination was only to
submit application and appear in the
selection process for the vacancies under
different rules, as advertised by the
Commission. Therefore, it cannot be said that
any selection process was initiated under the
Lekhpal Rules, 2006 merely by conducting PET
examination.

U.P. Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006: Rule 14
provides
that
appointing
authority
shall
determine
and
intimate
to
the
selection
committee the number of vacancies to be filled
up during course of the year of recruitment. The
selection committee stands replaced by the
Selection Commission as per the Commission
Act. Therefore, it is for the selection commission
to advertise the vacancies as per relevant
service rules. Thus, the selection process for the
post of Revenue Lekhpal cannot be said to have
started with the PET examination but initiated
when the same were advertised on 05.01.2022
by the Commission. (Para 7)

Therefore, there is no force in the first
submission that, the selection process should be
treated to have started in the month of June,
2021, when the PET examination was conducted
by the Commission.