# Gorakh Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 823
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-01
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 12955 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gorakh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52000
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Nagar Palika Non
Centralized Services Retirement Benefits
Regulations, 1984 - Reg. 2(m) - Post
retiral benefits - Qualifying service -
Reckoning of services rendered as daily
wage employee claimed - Permissibility -
Held, the period of service rendered by the
petitioner as a daily-wager and in the nonpensionable establishment, followed by
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regularization, has to be reckoned as
qualifying service towards grant of pension
and gratuity to the petitioner, besides
whatever
other
retiral
benefits
are
dependent upon qualifying service being
rendered. (Para 16)

B. Service law - Post retiral benefits -
Pendency of Judicial proceeding or Inquiry
by Administrative Tribunal - Effect - Held,
if departmental proceedings or an inquiry
by the Administrative Tribunal or judicial
proceedings,
which
certainly
include
criminal trial, are pending against a
government
servant,
a
principle
extendable to an employee of the Nagar
Panchayat, regular and full pension and
gratuity cannot be paid until conclusion of
the trial, which are described as judicial
proceedings - The payment of gratuity
would have to await the conclusion of trial,
and so far as pension is concerned,
provisional pension is payable, which
would be slightly less than the final
pension to be sanctioned and paid - The
other dues, of course, like provident fund,
group insurance and leave encashment
would be payable. (Para 17)

Writ petition allowed in part. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Gorakh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
823
the various judgments, has held that while
discharging as Officiating Principal, the
Principal would be entitled for salary of the
said post. The relevant paragraph no.57-A of
the said judgment is quoted as below:-

"57 ......

(i) ......

(ii)
An
officiating
principal
appointed under the Statutes of the University,
which are pari materia to the provisions of
Statute 10-B of the First Statutes would be
entitled to claim the payment of salary in the
regular grade of principal for the period
during which he or she has worked until a
regularly selected candidate has been
appointed and has assumed charge of the
office."

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Smt. P. Grover Vs State of Haryana and
Anr, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1060, has held
that the petitioner was discharging her duties
as Basic Education Officer on an acting basis,
and therefore, she is entitled for the salary of
such higher post.

10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Secy.- Cum-Chief Engineer,
Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors.,
AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2909 has held that
if a person is promoted to the higher post or
put to officiate on that post, or stop-gap
arrangement is made to place him on higher
post, entitle for higher salary.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal,
(2017) 9 SCC 395, after considering the above
referred two judgments, has held that the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay-scale
for higher officiating post.

12. In view of the facts as stated above
as well as law down by the Full Bench of
this Court and various judgments passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner is
entitled for higher salary even for ad-hoc
basis on the post of Headmistress.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.

14. A mandamus is issued in favour of
the petitioner for payment of arrears of
salary along with all consequential benefits
with effect from 17.02.1988 till date, she
discharged her duties as Headmistress in the
institution in question, within a period of
one month from the date of production of
certified copy of this order before the
concerned respondent.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 823
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 12955 of 2023

Gorakh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
CSC, Vijay Kumar Dubey

A. Service Law - UP Nagar Palika Non
Centralized Services Retirement Benefits
Regulations, 1984 - Reg. 2(m) - Post
retiral benefits - Qualifying service -
Reckoning of services rendered as daily
wage employee claimed - Permissibility -
Held, the period of service rendered by the
petitioner as a daily-wager and in the nonpensionable establishment, followed by
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regularization, has to be reckoned as
qualifying service towards grant of pension
and gratuity to the petitioner, besides
whatever
other
retiral
benefits
are
dependent upon qualifying service being
rendered. (Para 16)

B. Service law - Post retiral benefits -
Pendency of Judicial proceeding or Inquiry
by Administrative Tribunal - Effect - Held,
if departmental proceedings or an inquiry
by the Administrative Tribunal or judicial
proceedings,
which
certainly
include
criminal trial, are pending against a
government
servant,
a
principle
extendable to an employee of the Nagar
Panchayat, regular and full pension and
gratuity cannot be paid until conclusion of
the trial, which are described as judicial
proceedings - The payment of gratuity
would have to await the conclusion of trial,
and so far as pension is concerned,
provisional pension is payable, which
would be slightly less than the final
pension to be sanctioned and paid - The
other dues, of course, like provident fund,
group insurance and leave encashment
would be payable. (Para 17)

Writ petition allowed in part. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; (2019) 10
SCC 516

2. Ram Sewak Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2024:AHC:17407

3. Shivgopal & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2019 (5)
ADJ 441 (FB)

4. St. of U.P. & ors.Vs Mahanand Pandey & anr.;
2021 (6) All LJ 37

5.
Jagdhari
Vs
St.
of
U.P.
&
anr.;
2024:AHC:75212

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition has been instituted
praying that a mandamus be issued to the
Executive
Officer,
Nagar
Panchayat,
Magahar, District Sant Kabir Nagar to grant
the petitioner his pension and other post
retiral benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed a Tax
Moharrir on 01.04.1989 by the Nagar
Panchayat, Magahar, District Sant Kabir
Nagar (for short, 'the Nagar Panchayat'),
when it was a notified area, on a daily-wage
of Rs.30/- per day. The petitioner joined
with the Nagar Panchayat, the day he was
appointed. The case of the petitioner is that,
according to the Government Orders dated
08.01.1992 and 03.02.1992, the petitioner
was entitled to be regularized. He draws the
Court's attention to the Government Order
dated 08.01.1992, which provides that
employees working on daily-wages, who
have been appointed before 11.10.1989 and
completed three years of continuous service
with 240 days in each calendar year, are
entitled to be regularized in service.

3. It is the petitioner's case that the
Government Order aforesaid provides that
those who have not completed three years'
service, their services will not be terminated
and they would be absorved in future as
regular employees. The petitioner asserts
that he has been in continuous employ of the
Nagar Panchayat from the date of his
appointment, to wit, 01.04.1989, until his
retirement. Thus, the petitioner was entitled
to
be
regularized
pursuant
to
the
Government Orders last mentioned, but was
not. He represented his case with the Nagar
Panchayat seeking regularization, but was
paid no heed.

4. The petitioner points out that there
were a number of permanent posts lying
vacant with the Nagar Panchayat, but the
petitioner, whenever he raised his claim to
be regularized in service, was given verbal
5 All. Gorakh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
825
assurance and nothing more. He was told
that he would be accommodated in future as
there was no permanent vacancy available in
the establishment of the Nagar Panchayat.
Two persons, however, were appointed in
the Nagar Panchayat establishment by the
then Officer-in-Charge, Nagar Panchayat,
Basant Ram, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Khalilabad, then part of District Basti. The
aforesaid illegal appointment, according to
the petitioner, was made because the
appointee was a true brother of one Ram
Poojan Dubey, an employee of the Nagar
Panchayat and other man appointed, was a
true brother of the then Officer-in-Charge of
the Nagar Panchayat, Basant Ram. Basant
Ram, being the Appointing Authority, made
both these illegal appointments. These
appointments were to the petitioner's
prejudice, whose claim for regularization
was pending without consideration. It is
pointed out that the services of the two men,
who were inducted illegally, to wit, Jai
Shankar Dubey and Ram Kewal, have been
regularized as Clerks in the establishment of
the Nagar Panchayat w.e.f. 25.05.1992.

5. The petitioner and other similarly
circumstanced
employees
represented
against the above illegal appointments and
regularization of the aforesaid employees,
which
led
the
Commissioner,
Basti
Division, Basti to address a letter to the
Director, Local Bodies, bringing to the
Director's notice the illegal appointments
made in the Nagar Panchayat. It was
reported that the appointments of Jai
Shankar Dubey and Ram Kewal were
contrary to Government Orders. There were
various other illegalities that had fouled
these
appointments.
Nothing
in
consequence happened and the petitioner
represented again to the Commissioner,
Basti Division to consider his case for
regularization. The Commissioner found the
petitioner's claim to be worthy, but nothing
came of it.

6. In the circumstances, the petitioner
filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.279 of
2000, claiming relief of regularization in
service, based on the Government Orders
introducing a regularization scheme. The
aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court vide order
dated 22.02.2011. The petitioner carried a
special appeal to the Division Bench, being
Special Appeal No.1837 of 2011. The said
appeal, according to the petitioner, is still
pending. In the meantime, the petitioner's
services were regularized on 03.02.2011 and
he is working regularly. The petitioner
asserts that he has rendered more than 32
years of service with the Nagar Panchayat
and regularized 9 years prior to his
retirement.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is
that he has served the Nagar Panchayat for
32 years, but not granted any retirement
benefits. The petitioner claims that he has
retired from service on 01.01.2021, a year
and a half until time when this petition was
instituted,
but
nothing
towards
his
retirement benefits was paid despite repeat
claims and representations. In substance,
therefore, what the petitioner seeks is the
reckoning of all his 32 years of service with
the Nagar Panchayat for the purpose of grant
of post retiral benefits. The respondents, on
the other hand, say that he is disentitled
because he has rendered only 9 years of
regular service prior to his retirement, which
is not qualifying service for the purpose of
pension and other post retiral benefits.

8. A supplementary affidavit was filed
by the petitioner, wherein it was averred that
the petitioner has not been paid gratuity nor
his group insurance or leave encashment. It
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is asserted that he has served for more than
30 years as a daily-wager, which is an
appointment
temporary
in
nature,
whereafter he was regularized in the year
2011. He served for more than 9 years as a
regular employee. He relies upon the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in Prem
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2019) 10 SCC 516 to submit that all his
services continuously rendered in whatever
capacity these might be have to be reckoned
towards his qualifying service for the
purpose of his entitlement to pension,
gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance
and other post retiral benefits.

9. On 08.08.2023, a notice of motion
was issued to the Executive Officer of the
Nagar Panchayat, asking him to show cause
by filing a personal affidavit why the
petitioner's post retiral benefits and pension
have not been paid. A personal affidavit was
filed by the Executive Officer of the Nagar
Panchayat, which has been read by the Court
as a counter affidavit. It does not say much
about the petitioner's entitlement to pension
and post retiral benefits. Instead, it says that
a criminal case is pending against him at the
instance of the Nagar Panchayat, being Case
Crime No.64 of 2021, under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali
Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar and
another Case Crime No.301 of 2021, under
Section 409 IPC, P.S. Khalilabad, District
Kabir Nagar. The petitioner had been
arrested in the said cases.

10. So far as the entitlement of the
petitioner to pension is concerned, all that
the respondents, in the personal affidavit of
the Executive Officer, say is that they
undertake that in case anything is due in
retiral benefits to the petitioner, the
respondents are ready to pay the same
without delay. It is also said that the
petitioner has concealed facts regarding
receipt of retiral dues, that have already been
paid to him after scrutiny of his records.

11. A supplementary counter affidavit
dated 29th October, 2023 has also been filed
on behalf of the Nagar Panchayat by the
Executive Officer. The stand taken in
Paragraph No.3 of the supplementary
counter affidavit is that the services
rendered by the petitioner in the regular
establishment, do not constitute qualifying
service and for the said reason, the Nagar
Panchayat did not provide other benefits to
the petitioner. It is next averred in Paragraph
No.5 of the supplementary counter affidavit
that the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for
Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (for short,
'the Act of 2021') is applicable to employees
of the State Government and not employees
of Non-Centralized Services of the Nagar
Panchayat. In substance, therefore, the
respondents accept the position that the Act
of 2021 does not apply to the petitioner's
case. It is next averred in Paragraph No.6
that the principle in Prem Singh (supra) does
not apply to the Nagar Panchayat.

12. On the pleadings of parties
exchanged, this petition was admitted to
hearing on 06.11.2023, which proceeded
forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

13. Heard Mr. Sandeep Maniji
Bakhshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the President of the
Nagar Panchayat and its Executive Officer
and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel,
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Staterespondents.

14. There are two issues, which are
involved in this case. One is about the
5 All. Gorakh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
827
petitioner's
entitlement
to
receive
a
retirement pension taking into account the
entire period of his service, most of which
was as a daily-wager, and the other is, if the
petitioner is entitled to receipt of pension
and gratuity pending the two criminal cases
against him.

15. So far as the first issue is
concerned, the regulations that apply
regarding payment of retirement benefits to
employees of Nagar Panchayats, Nagar
Palikas, other than members of Centralized
Services, are the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika
Non
Centralized
Services
Retirement
Benefits Regulations, 1984 (for short, 'the
Regulations of 1984'). Qualifying service
has been defined in Regulation 2(m) with
reference to Article 368 of the Civil Service
Regulations. It is on the foot of that
definition of qualifying service that the
respondents here regard the period of
service rendered by the petitioner on dailywages as service, not entitling the petitioner
to pension and related post retiral benefits.
They rely upon the period of service
rendered
by
the
petitioner
post
regularization in service. This issue fell for
consideration before me in Ram Sewak
Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, Neutral
Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17407, where it
was held:

"13. Nevertheless, this Court
leaves this issue open in the matter,
inasmuch as this case may be decided
effectively on a different point altogether.
The principle laid down by the Supreme
Court in Prem Singh can be said to be
negated by the Act of 2021, in cases where
the said Act applies. In the present case, it is
common ground between parties that the
Act of 2021 does not apply; rather, the
entitlement of the petitioner is governed by
the Regulations of 1984. It is true that the
Act of 2021 would not affect the petitioner's
rights, but the decision in Prem Singh was
rendered in the context of Rule 3(8) of the
Rules of 1961 and Regulation 370 of the
Civil Services Regulations of U.P. in case of
work-charged employees, who had worked
for a long period of time, holding that nonconsideration of long service in the workcharged
establishment
would
be
discriminatory in view of the note appended
to Rule 3(8) of the Rules of 1961, which
says that 'If service rendered in a nonpensionable establishment, work-charged
establish-ment or in a post paid from
contingencies falls between two periods of
temporary
service
in
a
pensionable
establishment or between a period of
temporary service and permanent service in
a pensionable establishment, it will not
constitute an interruption of service'. This
note appended to Rule 3(8) (supra) was
regarded as creating a class without an
intelligible differentia bearing nexus with
the object of classification, and, therefore,
discriminatory when compared to a case of
continuous work-charged establishment. It
was in the context of Rule 3(8) of the Rules
of 1961 and Regulation 370 of the Civil
Services
Regulations
of
U.P.
that
continuous service in the work-charged
establishment was held by their Lordships of
the Supreme Court to entitle the employee to
a reckoning of the work-charged period with
service
rendered
in
the
regular
establishment.

14. Regulation 2(m) of the Rules of
1984 reads:

"2. Definition.- .....

(m) "qualifying service" means
service which qualified for pension, in
accordance with the provisions of Article
368 of the Civil Service Regulations, as
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amended from time to time, excepting the
following:

(i) periods of temporary or
officiating service in a non-pensionable
establishment under the Municipal Board
concerned;

(ii) periods of service in a workcharged establishment; and

(iii) periods of service in a post
paid from contingencies:

Provided that period of continued,
temporary or officiating service under the
Municipal Board concerned shall count as
qualifying service if it is followed by
confirmation on the same post or any other
post without any interruption of service.

NOTE-If service rendered in a
non-pensionable
establishment,
workcharged establishment or in a post paid from
contingencies falls between two periods of
temporary
service
in
a
pensionable
establishment or between a period of
temporary service and permanent service in
a pensionable establishment it will not
constitute an interruption of service."

15. Now, the definition of 'qualifying
service'
in
Regulation
2(m)
of
the
Regulations of 1984 is almost cast in the
same terms as that in Rule 3(8) of the Rules
of 1961, that were read down by the
Supreme Court in Prem Singh to hold that
services rendered in the work-charged
establishment
would
be
treated
as
'qualifying service' under the last mentioned
Rules for the purpose of grant of pension.
The principle in Prem Singh, to reckon
continuous service in the work-charged
establishment as 'qualifying service' under
Rule 3(8) of the Rules of 1961, has been
extended in its application to continuous
service of any kind, such as those rendered
on daily-wages or ad hoc basis, followed by
regularization, on the same post and in the
same capacity. These principles have been
adopted, particularly, in case of long
retention in service on daily-wages or ad hoc
basis
or
work-charged
establishment,
followed
by
regularization.
Without
reference to much authority on this point, it
would suffice to refer to a decision of this
Court in Kallu Ali v. State of U.P. and
others, 2022 (4) AWC 3840, a case relating
to an employee of a Development Authority,
who had worked for a long time on dailywages and then regularized in service. The
issue had arisen in Kallu Ali (supra) in the
context of his qualifying service for the
purpose of entitlement to pension. After a
copious review of authority on the point in
Kallu Ali, it was held:

"28. The authorities referred to
herein above and those of this Court clearly
hold that if an employee has discharged
duties whether temporarily or as a daily
wager or on ad hoc basis on a post for which
requirement was there and services of such
an employee have come to be regularized on
the said post or in the same capacity, the
period spent before regularization should be
considered and added to pensionable
services. The courts have not approved the
act and conduct of the employer to deny
pension to its employee if he has rendered a
number of substantial year of continuous
service in an establishment leading to his /
her regularization if such an establishment
holds a pensionable service. The State
Government has been taken to be a model
employer and a State being a welfare State,
the courts have shown serious concern in the
event an employee who has spent all his life
in the service of such establishment, stands
denied pension on his attaining the age of
superannuation and being retired as such."

16. The line of decisions noticed in
Kallu Ali and the extension of the principle
to various classes of employees, who had
5 All. Gorakh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
829
worked outside the regular establishment
followed by regularization, asking their
service rendered dehors the rules to be
reckoned for the purpose of their qualifying
service, entitling them to pension etc., are all
based on the principle in Prem Singh. In the
opinion of this Court, this line of decisions
would pose some difficulty in cases of
employees of establishments of the State
Government, to which the Act of 2021
applies and which, as said earlier, virtually
upturns the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in Prem Singh. This would,
however,
not
be
the
case
about
establishments, to which the Act of 2021
does not apply. It has already been noticed
that there is no issue in this case that the Act
of 2021 does not apply to the respondents.
What, therefore, follows is that the law laid
down in Prem Singh would govern the rights
of
employees
in
the
respondents'
establishment. The decisions that have
followed and extended the principle in Prem
Singh to classes of employees functioning
dehors the rules followed by regularization
for the purpose of reckoning their qualifying
service, entitling them to pension, would
squarely apply to the petitioner's case.

17. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the
reckoning of his services rendered on ad hoc
basis
w.e.f.
02.09.1988
until
his
regularization in service on 26.03.2006 for
the purpose of determining his post retiral
benefits......"

16. To the clear understanding of
this Court, therefore, the period of service
rendered by the petitioner as a daily-wager
and in the non-pensionable establishment,
followed by regularization, has to be
reckoned as qualifying service towards grant
of pension and gratuity to the petitioner,
besides whatever other retiral benefits are
dependent upon qualifying service being
rendered.

17. This takes us to the other issue,
if on account of the two First Information
Reports registered against the petitioner, the
petitioner is not entitled to pension and
gratuity. The position appears to be fairly
well settled that if departmental proceedings
or an inquiry by the Administrative Tribunal
or judicial proceedings, which certainly
include criminal trial, are pending against a
government servant, a principle extendable
to an employee of the Nagar Panchayat,
regular and full pension and gratuity cannot
be paid until conclusion of the trial, which
are described as judicial proceedings. The
payment of gratuity would have to await the
conclusion of trial, and so far as pension is
concerned, provisional pension is payable,
which would be slightly less than the final
pension to be sanctioned and paid. The other
dues, of course, like provident fund, group
insurance and leave encashment would be
payable. This principle is well settled in
view of the authority of the Full Bench of
this Court in Shivgopal and others v. State
of U.P. and others, 2019 (5) ADJ 441 (FB),
a Bench decision of this Court in State of
U.P. through Principal Secretary and others
v. Mahanand Pandey and another, 2021 (6)
All LJ 37 and a very recent decision of mine
in Jagdhari v. State of U.P. and another,
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:75212.
The petitioner has certainly not been
sanctioned any pension, provisional or final,
nor has he been paid gratuity. This is
because the respondents have disputed his
right to receive pension and gratuity on
account of the petitioner not having
rendered
qualifying
service
to
the
respondents' understanding. This reasoning
of the respondents, we have not accepted, as
already indicated. The petitioner is entitled
to pension as well as gratuity, so far as his
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rights under the Regulations of 1984 go. It is
not known to this Court if the two FIRs
lodged against the petitioner have resulted in
charge-sheets and matured into judicial
proceedings, taking the shape of criminal
trials, pending against the petitioner. If
indeed in either of two FIRs registered
against the petitioner, he has been chargesheeted and the criminal trial, which has to
be regarded as a judicial proceedings against
him, is/ or pending, all that the petitioner can
receive is his provisional pension. He will
not receive gratuity.

18. The question of entitlement to the
award of final pension and gratuity would
have to be decided after conclusion of trial.
At the same time, provisional pension in
accordance with rules would have to be
sanctioned for the petitioner and paid to him,
to which he is entitled under the Regulations
of 1984. So far as the other post retiral
benefits, such as leave encashment, group
insurance and GPF are concerned, it is not
known to the petitioner, if these have been
paid. The respondents have said somewhere
that some of these benefits have been paid.
If these have been paid, there is no further
obligation. But if not, the petitioner would
be entitled to the payment of each of these.

19. In the circumstances, this writ
petition succeeds and allowed in part. The
petitioner is held entitled to sanction of a
retirement pension and gratuity, reckoning
the entire period of his service with the
respondents, including the period of his
daily-wage service. However, if he is facing
a criminal trial, he will, for the time being,
be sanctioned and paid a provisional pension
and not his gratuity. The sanction and
payment of final pension and gratuity would
be for the respondents to consider after
conclusion of the pending criminal trial, if
any. However, if no criminal trial is pending
against the petitioner, final pension would
have to be sanctioned for him forthwith and
both pension and gratuity would become
payable. The respondents will scrutinize the
petitioner's records and if any other retiral
dues,
like
leave
encashment,
group
insurance and GPF, whatever be due under
the rules, has not been paid, the same too
shall be paid. The respondents shall be under
a command to undertake the necessary
reckoning and discharge their obligations to
pay the petitioner his post retiral benefits, as
above directed, within a period of one month
of the receipt of this judgment.

20. No costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 830
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 14354 of 2023

Smt. Mannu Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Love Lesh Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gopal Krishna Pandey

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 & 16 - Termination - Post of
Safai
Karmchari
-
Appointment
of
petitioner was made on the post vacant
due to resignation of her father-in-law -
Father-in-law resigned with the condition
that
his
daughter-in-law
be
given
appointment - Permissibility - Held, every
post in the establishment of the Nagar
Palika has to be filled up in accordance with
rules, conforming to Article 14 of the