# Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another). Thus the

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 596
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-13
- **Bench:** Uma Nath Singh, Mahendra Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/electricity-board-and-another-v-narata-singh-and-another-thus-the-42594
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri A.M. Tripathi

U.P. Civil Services Regulation-Regulation
370-
Pensionary
benifit-respondents
working on daily wages basis-given status
of work charge employee in 1984 and 89stood
regularised
on
01.04.99
and
24.07.99-retired on 31.01.2009-admittedly
worked continuously 21 yrs as work
charge employee and 10 years as regular
employee-Single
Judge
following
the
Judgment of Mohd. Mustfa given parity-in
which similar provision of Regularization
3.17 of Punjab Civil Services Rules was
quashed by Full Bench in Kesar Chand
case-upheld by Apex Court-provisions of
Regulation 370 has to be read down with
judgment
of
Apex
Court
in
Punjab
Electricity Board-appeal dismissed.

Held: Para-6
On due consideration of rival submissions,
we dismiss the special appeal for reasons
that the learned Single Judge has granted
parity with a similarly situated employee
as referred to herein above, namely Mohd.
Mustafa; and that in a similar case a Full
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court has quashed the provision which
was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
appeal: the judgment of the Full Bench has
merged into the judgment of the Hon'ble
the Apex Court reported in AIR SCW 1670
(Punjab Electricity Board and another v.
Narata Singh and another). Thus the
provisions of regulation 370 of the U.P.
Civil Service Regulation have to be read
down in line with judgment of Hon'ble the
Apex Court in the absence of challenge to
2 All] State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Prem Chandra And Ors.
597
the validity of the regulation in this
petition or in any other petition earlier.

Case Law discussed:
2009(27) LCD 1163; AIR 1988 Punj & Har
265;AIR SCW 1670

## Text

596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
there is consistency on the point that in case
of an insurance policy not taking any higher
liability by accepting a higher premium, the
liability of the Insurance Company is
neither unlimited nor higher than the
statutory liability fixed under Section 95 (2)
of the Act. In Amrit Lal Sood's case, the
decision in Shanti Bai is not noticed.
However, both these decisions refer to the
case of Jugal Kishore and no contrary view
is expressed.

In the premise, we hold that the view
expressed by the Bench of three learned
Judges in the case of Shanti Bai is correct
and answer the question set up in the
order of reference in the beginning is as
under :

"In the case of Insurance Company not
taking any higher liability by accepting a
higher
premium
for
payment
of
compensation to a third party, the insurer
would be liable to the extent limited under
Section 95 (2) of the Act and would not be
liable to pay the entire amount."

11. In the result, the appeal is
allowed. The order of Tribunal is
modified to the extent that the appellant is
liable to pay only Rs.5,000/- and the
balance amount is payable by the owner
of the vehicle. However, the appellant is
directed to pay the entire amount of
compensation and recover the balance
amount from the owner of the vehicle.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 13.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMA NATH SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHENDRA DAYAL, J.

Special Appeal (D) No. 264 Of 2013
with 275/07; 583/07; 182/07; 722/07;
601/11

State of U.P. & Ors.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Prem Chandra and Ors.8577(S/S) 2010

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.M. Tripathi

U.P. Civil Services Regulation-Regulation
370-
Pensionary
benifit-respondents
working on daily wages basis-given status
of work charge employee in 1984 and 89stood
regularised
on
01.04.99
and
24.07.99-retired on 31.01.2009-admittedly
worked continuously 21 yrs as work
charge employee and 10 years as regular
employee-Single
Judge
following
the
Judgment of Mohd. Mustfa given parity-in
which similar provision of Regularization
3.17 of Punjab Civil Services Rules was
quashed by Full Bench in Kesar Chand
case-upheld by Apex Court-provisions of
Regulation 370 has to be read down with
judgment
of
Apex
Court
in
Punjab
Electricity Board-appeal dismissed.

Held: Para-6
On due consideration of rival submissions,
we dismiss the special appeal for reasons
that the learned Single Judge has granted
parity with a similarly situated employee
as referred to herein above, namely Mohd.
Mustafa; and that in a similar case a Full
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court has quashed the provision which
was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
appeal: the judgment of the Full Bench has
merged into the judgment of the Hon'ble
the Apex Court reported in AIR SCW 1670
(Punjab Electricity Board and another v.
Narata Singh and another). Thus the
provisions of regulation 370 of the U.P.
Civil Service Regulation have to be read
down in line with judgment of Hon'ble the
Apex Court in the absence of challenge to
2 All] State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Prem Chandra And Ors.
597
the validity of the regulation in this
petition or in any other petition earlier.

Case Law discussed:
2009(27) LCD 1163; AIR 1988 Punj & Har
265;AIR SCW 1670

(Delivered by Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh, J.)

1. We have heard learned counsel
for parties and perused the pleadings of
the Special Appeal. This order shall
dispose of all the connected appeals, for,
they impugn the same cause of action
with some what similar facts.

2. The private respondents herein were
engaged as the daily wager employees in the
Public Works Department at Ghaziabad.
Having found their work and conduct
satisfactory and up to the mark, they were
granted status of work charged employees in
the department with effect from 1.7.1989,
1.6.1984 and 1.7.1989 respectively. They
were later appointed as Beldar and
Chaukidar. It also appears that all the private
respondents worked continuously from the
date of their engagement till the date of
retirement on 31.1.2009. Thus they worked
for over 31 years, namely, around 20 years as
work charged employees and over 10 years
as regular employees. It appears that
respondents no.1 and 2 were regularized on
1.4.1999 while no.3 became regular on
24.7.1999.

3. During their engagement as work
charged employees several substantive
posts became vacant on account of death,
retirement and resignation of regular
employees, but despite the continuous
service they were not considered for
regularization. Thus they filed a writ
petition before this Court, which has been
decided by the impugned order dated
9.9.2011 by granting parity with similarly
situated employees, who filed Writ
Petition No. 2637(S/S) of 2009: Mohd.
Mustafa versus State of U.P. and
others, which is reported in 2009 (27)
LCD 1163, and wherein this Court has
granted them the pensionary benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-
State of U.P. argues that since the
respondents were engaged for about 20
years as work charged employees and
remained regularized for less than 10
years, they do not possess the qualifying
service for the purpose of grant of
pensionary benefits. Learned counsel
referred to Regulation 370 of the U.P.
Civil Service Regulation in support of his
contention
that
even
though
the
respondents worked continuously for over
31 years but since they worked for about
20 years in work charged establishment,
they failed to qualify for the grant of
pensionary benefits in the absence of 10
years regular service with the department.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
for private respondents Shri A.M. Tripathi
submitted that there was a parallel provision
in Punjab Civil Services Rules, namely, 3.17
(ii) which was considered by a Full Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
matter of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab
and others (reported in AIR 1988 Punj &
Har 265) and the provision having not been
found sustainable was quashed. The matter
was taken up before the the Apex court but
the judgment of the Full Bench was upheld.
Thus a parallel provision existing in the
service regulation of U.P. have to be read
down to conform to the judgment of Hon'ble
the Apex Court in the case of Kesar Singh
(supra).

6. On due consideration of rival
submissions, we dismiss the special
appeal for reasons that the learned Single
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Judge has granted parity with a similarly
situated employee as referred to herein
above, namely Mohd. Mustafa; and that in
a similar case a Full Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court has quashed the
provision which was upheld by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in appeal: the
judgment of the Full Bench has merged
into the judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex
Court reported in AIR SCW 1670
(Punjab Electricity Board and another
v. Narata Singh and another). Thus the
provisions of regulation 370 of the U.P.
Civil Service Regulation have to be read
down in line with judgment of Hon'ble the
Apex Court in the absence of challenge to
the validity of the regulation in this
petition or in any other petition earlier.

7. Regarding the application for
condonation of delay in filing the Special
Appeal, as learned counsel for the
respondents does not have any objection
to the application being allowed it is
hereby allowed and the delay as pointed
out by the registry is thus condoned.

8. The special appeal, being devoid
of merit, is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 21.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J.

Review Petition No. 368 of 2010

Smt. Meena Singh and others.Petitioners
Versus
Jang Bahadur and others.. .Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Shukla

U.P.Zamindari
abolition
and
Land
Reforms
Act
1955-Rule
285-H-
Application to set-a-side auction sale-filed
within time-kept pending without disposalargument that unless entire amount of
auction
of
sale
not
deposited-before
confirmation of sale-mere filing application
within time immaterial-held-unless order
passed-the
treasury
challan
verifiedamount could not be deposited-view taken
by collector rightly depreciated no question
of Review-application rejected.

Held: Para-11
Under the circumstances, I am of the
view that the deposition of the amount is
necessarily a condition precedent for
setting aside the sale, but not for moving
the application for setting aside the sale.
The argument as raised by the learned
counsel for the respondents/petitioners
is worth to be considered that unless the
petitioners' application is allowed and
the Treasury Form offering the amount
to deposit in the Treasury is verified by
the Revenue Authority, the same shall
not be accepted by the Treasury. It is not
in dispute that in the case in hand the
petitioners moved the application for
setting aside the sale within thirty days
from the date of sale, but the same was
kept
undisposed
of,
rather
the
respondents proceeded to confirm the
sale.

Case Law discussed:
2006(100)RD 534; 2006(3)AWC 2976; (1996)
6 SCC 755

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shri Narayan
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Mr.Ratan Kant Sharma,
learned counsel for the review petitioners
as well as Mr.S.P.Shukla, learned counsel
for
the
petitioners/respondents.