# Dr. S.K. Pant Professor & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 810
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-15
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 16734 of 2012
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-s-k-pant-professor-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54792
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Amrendra Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Chandan
Sharma, Manoj Kumar Singh, Radhey
Krishna Pandey, Ram Gopal Tripathi, Ritvik
Upadhyay,
Shailendra,
Shashi
Prakash
Singh, V.K.Singh

Issue for Consideration
Entitlement of employee of an autonomous
institution namely Govind Ballabh Pant Social
Science Institute to get General Provident Fund
at par with Central University Employee.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - General Provident Fund
-
Entitlement
-
Petitioners
were
appointed in an autonomous institution
registered under Societies Registration
Act, 1860 namely, Govind Ballabh Pant
Social Science Institute, Allahabad, which
was, later on, adopted as constituent
institution of University of Allahabad in
the year 2005 - Petitioner's claim for GPF
was rejected by UGC saying that since
Govind
Ballabh
Pant
Social
Science
Institute, Allahabad was an autonomous
body, therefore, despite it is a constituent
institution of Allahabad University, CCS
Rules were not applied to it - Validity
challenged :
Held : Even after the institution become
constituent of Allahabad University, it still
remain autonomous and its finances are taken
care by Central Government independently.
Therefore also, there is no absolute right that
petitioners may be granted benefit of General
Provident
Fund
Scheme.
In
aforesaid
circumstances, since there is no change in
constitution of institution even after it become
constituent of Allahabad University, as such
petitioners claim has no force - There is no
ground to interfere with impugned order. [Paras
12 and 14] (E- 1)

Case Law Cited
University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran and others,
(2022) 15 SCC 325; Indian Council of Social
Science Research (ICSSR) v. Neetu Gaur and
others, 2025 INSC 374; Priyankar Upadhyaya v.
Union of India and others, 2025:AHC:37820;
Prof. Harish Chandra Chaudhary and others v.
The
Union
of
India
and
others,
2025:AHC:69579-DB; Civil Appeal Nos. 76827684 of 2021, The State of Maharashtra and
another vs. Bhagwan and others decided on
10.01.2022 - referred to.

List of Acts
Societies Registration Act, 1860; University of
Allahabad Act, 2005; CCS Pension Rules.

List of Keywords
Autonomous
institution;
General
Provident
Fund; Central University Employee; Status of
Central University; Benefit of pension.

Case Arising From
Impugned order passed by the University Grant
Commission rejecting claim for grant of General
11 All. Dr. S.K. Pant Professor & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
811
Provident
Fund
instead
of
Contributory
Provident Fund.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Alok Mishra
Advs. For the Respondent : Ritvik Upadhyay,
Chandan Sharma, R. K. Pandey, and Anil Kumar
Singh

## Text

810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the conditions laid down in Aman Singh
(supra) for judicial interference stand
satisfied in the present case.

10. As regards judgment in Rupesh
Kumar (supra) is concerned, the same
does not deal with the said issue.

11. Accordingly, no good ground is
made out to interfere in the present
proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition
is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 810
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 16734 of 2012

Dr. S.K. Pant Professor & Ors....Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Alok Mishra, Ishir Sripat, Rahul Sripat
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Amrendra Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Chandan
Sharma, Manoj Kumar Singh, Radhey
Krishna Pandey, Ram Gopal Tripathi, Ritvik
Upadhyay,
Shailendra,
Shashi
Prakash
Singh, V.K.Singh

Issue for Consideration
Entitlement of employee of an autonomous
institution namely Govind Ballabh Pant Social
Science Institute to get General Provident Fund
at par with Central University Employee.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - General Provident Fund
-
Entitlement
-
Petitioners
were
appointed in an autonomous institution
registered under Societies Registration
Act, 1860 namely, Govind Ballabh Pant
Social Science Institute, Allahabad, which
was, later on, adopted as constituent
institution of University of Allahabad in
the year 2005 - Petitioner's claim for GPF
was rejected by UGC saying that since
Govind
Ballabh
Pant
Social
Science
Institute, Allahabad was an autonomous
body, therefore, despite it is a constituent
institution of Allahabad University, CCS
Rules were not applied to it - Validity
challenged :
Held : Even after the institution become
constituent of Allahabad University, it still
remain autonomous and its finances are taken
care by Central Government independently.
Therefore also, there is no absolute right that
petitioners may be granted benefit of General
Provident
Fund
Scheme.
In
aforesaid
circumstances, since there is no change in
constitution of institution even after it become
constituent of Allahabad University, as such
petitioners claim has no force - There is no
ground to interfere with impugned order. [Paras
12 and 14] (E- 1)

Case Law Cited
University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran and others,
(2022) 15 SCC 325; Indian Council of Social
Science Research (ICSSR) v. Neetu Gaur and
others, 2025 INSC 374; Priyankar Upadhyaya v.
Union of India and others, 2025:AHC:37820;
Prof. Harish Chandra Chaudhary and others v.
The
Union
of
India
and
others,
2025:AHC:69579-DB; Civil Appeal Nos. 76827684 of 2021, The State of Maharashtra and
another vs. Bhagwan and others decided on
10.01.2022 - referred to.

List of Acts
Societies Registration Act, 1860; University of
Allahabad Act, 2005; CCS Pension Rules.

List of Keywords
Autonomous
institution;
General
Provident
Fund; Central University Employee; Status of
Central University; Benefit of pension.

Case Arising From
Impugned order passed by the University Grant
Commission rejecting claim for grant of General
11 All. Dr. S.K. Pant Professor & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
811
Provident
Fund
instead
of
Contributory
Provident Fund.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Alok Mishra
Advs. For the Respondent : Ritvik Upadhyay,
Chandan Sharma, R. K. Pandey, and Anil Kumar
Singh

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

1.
Petitioners
were
admittedly
appointed
on
different
posts
in
an
autonomous institution registered under the
provisions of Indian Societies Registration
Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1860"), namely, Govind Ballabh Pant
Social Science Institute, Allahabad and
being
an
autonomous
institution
it's
finances
were
catered
jointly
by
Government of India (through ICSSR) and
Government of Uttar Pradesh.

2. In the year 2005 the University of
Allahabad was conferred status of a Central
University and vide Section 30(5) 1, 2 and
3 of University of Allahabad Act, 2005 it
was adopted as constituent institution of
University of Allahabad.

3. Now the petitioners are claiming
that by virtue of becoming a constituent
institution of University of Allahabad they
are entitled for all benefits granted to
Central University employees including the
benefit of pension, i.e., to provide General
Provident
Fund
Scheme
instead
of
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.

4. The claim of petitioners were
considered and rejected by University
Grants Commission that old scheme under
CCS Pension Rules is not available to any
new entry and since Govind Ballabh Pant
Social Science Institute, Allahabad was an
autonomous body, therefore, despite it is a
constituent
institution
of
Allahabad
University, CCS Rules were not applied to
it.

5. Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel
for petitioners submitted that petitioners
have not been granted benefit of pension
scheme whereas other employees who have
been appointed before the cut off date of
2005 of University are getting benefit of
pension. Learned counsel refers the
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
University of Delhi vs. Shashi Kiran and
others (2022)15 SCC 325 and Indian
Council
of
Social
Science
Research
(ICSSR) vs. Neetu Gaur and others, 2025
INSC 374 that the claim of petitioners be
considered and they be granted benefit of
pension scheme.

6. Per contra, Sri Ritvik Upadhyay, Sri
Chandan Sharma, Sri R.K. Pandey and Sri
Anil
Kumar
Singh,
Advocates
for
respondents have supported the impugned
order that only by virtue of being a
constituent institution, petitioners cannot be
granted benefit of pension scheme. They
further submitted that even the Central
Civil Service Rules are applicable to
petitioners it would not be considered that
they are entitled for pension also since both
have different manner of applicability.

7. I have considered the above
submissions and perused the material on
record.

8.
A
similar
controversy
was
considered by this Court in the case of
Priyankar Upadhyaya vs. Union of India
and others, 2025:AHC:37820 wherein a
claim of retired teaching and non-teaching
employees of Banaras Hindu University to
become beneficiary of General Provident
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Fund-cum-Pension Scheme was rejected by
a reasoned order and for reference the
relevant part of judgment is reproduced
hereinafter:

"20.
I
have
heard
learned
counsel for parties at length and perused
the material available on record.

21. The factual aspect of the case
which appears to be undisputed is that the
Union
of
India
has
issued
Office
Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 that CPF
beneficiaries who were in service on
01.01.1986 and were still in service on the
date of issue of Office Memorandum i.e.,
01.05.1987 will be deemed to come over in
GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, except they
have exercised their option to remain in
CPF
Scheme
by
30.09.1987
and
interpretation of said Office Memorandum
as held by Supreme Court in University of
Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) so far
as case of present petitioners is concerned,
is that any option given subsequent to cut
off date, i.e., 30.09.1987 to remain in CPF
Scheme, would be non-est and according to
petitioners since they have not given their
option on or before 30.09.1987, therefore,
they deemed to have come over to GPFcum-Pension Scheme despite admittedly
they have given option after said date.
Court has to consider effect of dates of
adoption of Scheme by Banaras Hindu
University, i.e., 09.04.1988 and cut off date
being fixed as 09.07.1988.

22. Learned Senior Advocates for
petitioners have pressed their arguments
heavily on an interpretation that petitioners
have given their option to remain in CPF
Scheme beyond the cut off date, i.e.,
30.09.1987, therefore, their options were
non-est and they were already deemed to
switch over in GPF-cum-Pension Scheme
and they are ready that if their prayers are
accepted,
they
will
return
Unions
contribution of CPF within a very short
period alongwith reasonable interest. The
date fixed by Banaras Hindu University to
give
option
was
beyond 30.09.1987,
therefore,
it
would
have
no
legal
consequence.

23. The Court is of the view that
there is no dispute so far as above referred
position of law is concerned and as held by
Supreme Court in University of Delhi vs.
Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) in very specific
words. Therefore, the law so far as option
given subsequent to 30.09.1987 as held by
Supreme Court has to be followed.
However, few facts make present cases still
distinguishable.

24. It is not in dispute that in the
present case, Banaras Hindu University
adopted GPF-cum-Pension Scheme by
notification dated 09.04.1988, i.e., much
after the cut off date, i.e., 30.09.1988 and it
has fixed the cut off date as 09.07.1988 to
exercise option to continue in CPF Scheme.
Therefore, if the law, as held by Supreme
Court in University of Delhi vs. Smt.
Shashi Kiran (supra) is applied in present
set of facts, any option subsequent to
09.07.1988 would be non-est. According to
the case of petitioners they have opted to
remain
continue
in
CPF
Scheme
subsequent to date of adoption of Scheme
by
Banaras
Hindu
University
on
09.04.1988 and before cut off date fixed,
i.e., 09.07.1988.

25. If the Court takes a view that
irrespective of fact whether any University
or Institution has adopted the Office
Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 even after
the cut off date, i.e., 30.09.1987, the cut off
date would be treated only 30.09.1987 and
11 All. Dr. S.K. Pant Professor & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
813
not any subsequent date fixed, then it would
frustrate
the
very
object
of
Office
Memorandum dated 01.05.1987, i.e., giving
option to remain continue in CPF Scheme
as it would render meaningless. Said issue
was not before Supreme Court since
admittedly Delhi University has issued
notification within a very few days of Office
Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 fixing
same cut off date, i.e., 30.09.1987. Same
was the factual position in a subsequent
judgment passed by Single Bench of Delhi
High Court in Neerja Tiku (supra) so far
as School of Planning and Architecture is
concerned.

26. So far as the argument that
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran
(supra) is in rem or in personam is
concerned, the Court is of the view that it
was a judgment in rem and not in
personam as also held by Single Bench of
Delhi High Court in Neerja Tiku (supra),
however, facts of each case may have
different consequences.

27. Now the Court proceed to
deal with the objection of Union of India
that
Office
Memorandum
issued
by
Government of India was not adopted in
due process by Banaras Hindu University.
In this regard, Court is of the view that
objection has no legal basis since such
objection was never raised in earlier round
of litigation as well as that it has already
been acted upon and its benefit has also
been granted. Therefore, the Court is also
of the opinion that without distinguishing
on facts or on law, the stand of Union of
India that the judgment of Supreme Court
in University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi
Kiran (supra) would not applicable to
other Universities, would not be a correct
legal approach.

28. Any objection with regard to
financial implication is also unsustainable
since it was the Office Memorandum of
Government of India which must have
taken
care
that
after
said
Office
Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 it was
possible that all beneficiary employees may
switch over to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.

29. Court also takes note that
similar prayer of petitioners were already
rejected by this Court vide judgment dated
12.08.2011 and only on ground that
subsequently a different interpretation of
law was given by a Single Bench of Delhi
High Court, which was affirmed by
Division Bench and thereafter affirmed by
Supreme Court in University of Delhi vs.
Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) and since
petitioners
were
approaching
the
authorities after these judgments, would
not make a ground that said judgment is
applicable to petitioners so much as that
earlier judgment would not come in the
way.

30.
The
outcome
of
above
discussion is that:

(a) The case of employees of
Banaras Hindu University is factually on a
different footing than the employees of
Delhi University.

(b) Banaras Hindu University has
adopted the Office Memorandum dated
01.05.1987 issued by Government of India
by a notification dated 09.04.1988, i.e.,
much after the original cut off date, i.e.,
30.09.1987, and has fixed the new cut off
date, i.e., 09.07.1988 to submit option and
since said notification is not under
challenge, therefore, while applying the
judgment of Supreme Court in University
of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra),
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
above
referred
dates
rendered
it
distinguishable.

(c) If the law as held by Supreme
Court in University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi
Kiran (supra) is applied in the facts and
circumstances of present cases taking note
of
above
referred
dates,
the
only
interpretation would be that any option
given beyond 09.07.1988 would non est,
however, on basis of record, none of
petitioners have a case that they have opted
to remain in earlier CPF Scheme on basis
of above cut off date rather their claim was
taken birth only after Banaras Hindu
University
adopted
the
Scheme
on
09.04.1988 and they have given option
before new cut off date, i.e., 09.07.1988,
therefore, the benefit of judgment in
University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran
(supra) would not be applicable to present
petitioners. Any other interpretation would
render
date
of
adoption
and
any
subsequent cut off date meaningless.

(d) It is not the case of petitioners
or Respondent-Banaras Hindu University
or even Union of India that Office
Memorandum
dated
01.05.1987
was
automatically applicable to all Central
Universities without being its specific
adoption by a particular University and
further that issue was not before the
Supreme Court in the case of University of
Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra).

31. In aforesaid circumstances,
this Court is of the view that relief sought
by petitioners cannot be granted. Impugned
orders, though are not legally sustainable
on grounds mentioned therein, since
Banaras Hindu University has adopted the
Scheme and that University of Delhi vs.
Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) is a judgment in
rem not in personam, still once the Court is
of the opinion that benefit of judgment
passed by Supreme Court in University of
Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra)
cannot be granted in given circumstances
of present cases, being distinguished on
facts and as discussed above, therefore,
there is no reason to interfere with orders
impugned in present petitions."

9. Petitioners therein have challenged
the aforesaid order before a Division Bench
of this Court which was also dismissed vide
order dated 02.05.2025 in Prof. Harish
Chandra Chaudhary and others vs. The
Union
of
India
and
others,
2025:AHC:69579-DB and relevant part
thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

"50. We are thus of the view that
the appellants would not be entitled to any
relief even though the subsequent judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.
Shashi Kiran (supra) supports their claim.
We are also of the view that subsequent
decision of the Executive Council also
would not come to the appellants rescue,
inasmuch as, the Central Government and
the UGC, both, had refused to allow change
from CPF to Pension Scheme. Such decision
of the Central Government was affirmed by
this Court in Dr. V.P. Singhs case. Without
there being any permission from the Central
Government/UGC, it was not open for the
BHU to have taken a different decision in the
matter of grant of option to switch over to
Pension Scheme. Since the BHU is 100%
funded by UGC/Central Government and is
otherwise not having enough resources to
bear the finances for the purpose on its own,
we would not be justified in accepting the
claim of the appellants to opt for pension
scheme.

51.
In
matters
of
financial
management and discipline the courts
11 All. Dr. S.K. Pant Professor & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
815
would have to be careful and vigilant in
granting reliefs. Any interference in such
matters would be permissible only where
the
facts
of
the
case
justify
such
interference on settled principles of law.

52. The Pension Scheme was
introduced on 1.1.1986. The option to
continue under CPF Scheme was availed
by the appellants. Their request for switch
over to Pension Scheme was rejected in
2011. The judgment in Dr. V.P. Singh
affirming such decision has attained
finality. The pension scheme itself has been
discontinued
in
2004.
In
such
circumstances and particularly when most
of
the
appellants
have
otherwise
superannuated, it would not be prudent
exercise of discretion for this Court to
interfere in the matter and permit change
from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme
nearly 40 years later. This is particularly
so, as in the previous round of litigation
such claim of appellants has otherwise
been rejected."

10. A challenge to it before Supreme
Court is pending but no interim order is
granted.

11. In the present case also in absence
of any specific provision for General
Provident Fund Scheme only on ground
that institution become constituent of
Allahabad University, petitioners cannot be
granted benefit of General Provident Fund
Scheme since it has to be granted only on
basis of relevant provisions which are not
applicable in the present case in favour of
petitioners.

12. The Court also takes note of above
referred judgments passed by a Single
Bench and Division Bench of this Court
wherein a similar claim raised by retired
employees of Banaras Hindu University
was rejected. Otherwise also, even after the
institution become constituent of Allahabad
University, it still remain autonomous and
its finances are taken care by Central
Government independently. Therefore also,
there is no absolute right that petitioners
may be granted benefit of General
Provident Fund Scheme. In aforesaid
circumstances, since there is no change in
constitution of institution even after it
become
constituent
of
Allahabad
University, as such petitioners claim has no
force.

13. The Court also takes note of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the
case of The State of Maharashtra and
another vs. Bhagwan and others (Civil
Appeal Nos. 7682-7684 of 2021), decided
on 10.01.2022, wherein it was held that
employees of Maharashtra Water and Land
Management Institute were not entitled for
Government pensionary benefits. Relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced
hereinafter:

"10.2 In the case of T.M.
Sampath and Ors. Vs. Secretary, Ministry
of Water Resources and Ors. (supra), the
employees of National Water Development
Agency (NWDA), an autonomous body
under the aegis and control of Ministry of
Water Resources claimed the pensionary
benefits
on
par
with
the
Central
Government employees. Refusing to allow
such pensionary benefits to the employees
of NWDA on par with the Central
Government employees, in paragraphs 16
and 17, it was observed and held as under:-

"16. On the issue of parity
between the employees of NWDA and
Central Government employees, even if it is
assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or were not applicable on the date of the
OM i.e. 1-5-1987, the relevant date of
parity, the principle of parity cannot be
applicable to the employees of NWDA.
NWDA
cannot
be
treated
as
an
instrumentality of the State under Article
12 of the Constitution merely on the basis
that its funds are granted by the Central
Government. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union
of India (2005) 4 SCC 649, it was held by
this Court that the autonomous bodies
having some nexus with the Government by
itself would not bring them within the
sweep of the expression State and each
case must be determined on its own merits.
Thus, the plea of the employees of NWDA
to be treated on a par with their
counterparts in the Central Government
under sub-rule (6)(iv) of Rule 209 of the
General Financial Rules, merely on the
basis of funding is not applicable.

17. Even if it is presumed that
NWDA is State under Article 12 of the
Constitution, the appellants have failed to
prove that they are on a par with their
counterparts, with whom they claim parity.
As held by this Court in UT, Chandigarh v.
Krishan Bhandari (1996) 11 SCC 348, the
claim to equality can be claimed when
there is discrimination by the State between
two persons who are similarly situated. The
said discrimination cannot be invoked in
cases where discrimination sought to be
shown is between acts of two different
authorities functioning as State under
Article 12. Thus, the employees of NWDA
cannot be said to be Central Government
employees as stated in the OM for its
applicability. As per the law laid down by
this Court in a catena of decisions, the
employees of the autonomous bodies
cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same
service
benefits
on
par
with
the
Government employees. Merely because
such autonomous bodies might have
adopted the Government Service Rules
and/or in the Governing Council there may
be a representative of the Government
and/or merely because such institution is
funded by the State/Central Government,
employees of such autonomous bodies
cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity
with
the
State/Central
Government
employees. This is more particularly, when
the employees of such autonomous bodies
are governed by their own Service Rules
and
service
conditions.
The
State
Government
and
the
Autonomous
Board/Body cannot be put on par.

10.3 In the case of Punjab State
Cooperative Milk Producers Federation
Limited and Anr. Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia
and Ors., (2021) 8 SCC 784, in paragraph
32, it is observed as under:-

"32.
The
Central
or
State
Government is empowered to levy taxes to
meet out the expenses of the State. It is
always a conscious decision of the
Government as to how much taxes have to
be levied so as to not cause excessive
burden on the citizens. But the Boards and
Corporations have to depend on either
their own resources or seek grant from the
Central/ State Government, as the case may
be, for their expenditures. Therefore, the
grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the
Central/State Government employees stand
on different footing than grant of pay scale
by an instrumentality of the State."

10.4
As
per
the
settled
proposition of law, the Court should refrain
from interfering with the policy decision,
which might have a cascading effect and
having financial implications. Whether to
grant certain benefits to the employees or
not should be left to the expert body and
11 All. Deepak Chowrasia Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
817
undertakings
and
the
Court
cannot
interfere lightly. Granting of certain
benefits may result in a cascading effect
having adverse financial consequences.

10.5 In the present case, WALMI
being an autonomous body, registered
under the Societies Registration Act, the
employees of WALMI are governed by their
own Service Rules and conditions, which
specifically do not provide for any
pensionary benefits; the Governing Council
of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra
Civil Services Rules except the Pension
Rules. Therefore, as such a conscious
policy decision has been taken not to
adopt the Pension Rules applicable to the
State Government employees; that the
State Government has taken such a policy
decision in the year 2005 not to extend
the pensionary benefits to the employees
of
the
aided
institutes,
boards,
corporations etc.; and the proposal of the
then Director of WALMI to extend the
pensionary benefits to the employees of
WALMI has been specifically turned
down
by
the
State
Government.
Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the High Court is not
justified in directing the State to extend
the pensionary benefits to the employees
of WALMI, which is an independent
autonomous entity."

14. The aforesaid judgment is also
against the case of petitioners. In aforesaid
circumstances, there is no ground to
interfere with impugned order. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 817
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 20558 of 2024

Deepak Chowrasia ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person

Counsel for the Respondent:
Shambhavi Tiwari, C.S.C., Rohit Pandey

Issue for Consideration
The circumstances, when the costs can be
imposed upon the petitioner-in-person for filing
the defective writ petition.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Post of Lecturer in
University - Contractual appointment -
Defective Writ Petition was filed -
Selected
candidates
were
not
impleaded - Petitioner sought prayer
for quashing the order, which was in his
favour - Petitioner was appearing in
person - Permissibility - Since the
petitioner
was
acting
against
his
interest, the court advised him to take
assistance of Amicus Curaie, but the
same was refused by the petitioner -
Costs, when can be imposed :

Held : There is no bar for petitioner in
person to file a petition and to argue their
case. In some case they argue better than
any qualified Advocate, but it is an exception
- A reference of G.O. by petitioner in person
would not help him since it has no statutory
backup otherwise a contractual appointee
has no indefeasible right for extension
specifically when regular appointments are
already been made - Court cannot help such
writ petitioner appearing in person on basis
of defective writ petition, making prayers
contrary to law, accordingly, this writ
petition
is
dismissed,
with
a
cost
of
Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the petitioner
in person in the District Legal Services
Authority, Kanpur Nagar. [Paras 4, 8 and 10]
(E- 1)