# Hriday Narain Pandey & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 825
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 46032 of 2017
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hriday-narain-pandey-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-53653
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the claim of retrenched
employees of U.P. Cement Corporation for
absorption
in
any
alternative
government
department in terms of the Uttar Pradesh
Absorption
of
Retrenched
Employees
of
Government
or
Public
Corporations
in
Government Service Rules, 1991 (Rules of
1991), and for the extension of the benefit of
absorption
granted
to
other
retrenched
employees of the same Corporation by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar
Verma vs. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 1
SCC 397.
Headnotes
Service Law - Absorption - Retrenched
Employees - U.P. Cement Corporation -
Petitioners, retrenched in 1999 - sought
absorption under 1991 Rules - Claim hit
by delay and laches - Judgment in rem or
in persona - Delay - Laches - Fencesitters
-
Rescission
Act,
2009
-
Retrospective effect - Petitioners therein
already absorbed and claiming pension -
Facts distinguishable - Not applicable.
Held: Judgment in Sunil Kumar Verma (2016) 1
SCC 397 was in persona and applicable only to
appellants therein - Petitioners were neither
parties before learned Single Judge, Division
Bench nor Supreme Court, despite litigation
continuing from 2003 to 2016 - Petitioners
approached this Court after 19 years without
any steps during said period - They were fencesitters - Litigation having remained pending for
13 years for similarly placed employees,
petitioners cannot now claim same benefit -
Division Bench decision in State of U.P. v.
Shambhu Nath Srivastava, squarely applicable -
Similar claim of retrenched employees of U.P.
State
Cement
Corporation
rejected
after
considering Sunil Kumar Verma and Act of 2009
- No reason to take a different view - 'Act of
2009' expressly bars claim of absorption for
those not absorbed till 8.4.2003 - Petitioners not
protected thereunder - Right under 1991 Rules
deemed terminated - Facts of State of U.P. v.
Shiv Jag Sharma & Ors., distinguishable, as
petitioners therein were already absorbed-Not
applicable - All writ petitions dismissed. (Para
4,15,17,18 ,19,20,21,22,24) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sunil Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2016) 1 SCC 397; Official Liquidator v.
Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1: (2009) 1 SCC
(L&S) 943;State of U.P. and others vs. Shiv
Jag Sharma and others, 2023: AHC:155290DB; State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Srivastava
and others, 2019: AHC:98463-DB; State of
U.P. and others vs. Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh and
others, 2025: AHC:7569-DB; Ajit Raizada and
others vs. State of U.P., 2011 (6) ADJ 511;
Prabhu Nath Prasad v. State of U.P., (2007) 2
All LJ 280.

List of Acts
U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of
Government
or
Public
Corporations
in
Government Service Rules, 1991 ("Rules of
1991")
U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of
Government
or
Public
Corporations
in
Government Service (Rescission of Rules) Rules,
2003 ("Rules of 2003")
Uttar
Pradesh
Absorption
of
Retrenched
Employees
of
Government
or
Public
Corporations in Government Service (Rescission
of Rules) Act, 2009 ("Act of 2009")

List of Keywords
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Retrenched employees - absorption - rescission
- fence-sitter - judicial discipline - pension - in
rem - in persona - Rescission Rules - alternative
government department.

Case Arising From
Writ-A No. 46032 of 2017 Along with other
connected cases, filed by retrenched employees
of the U.P. Cement Corporation (wound up in
1999), seeking a direction for their absorption in
alternative government departments under the
Uttar
Pradesh
Absorption
of
Retrenched
Employees
of
Government
or
Public
Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991
(Rules of 1991) and also sought the extension
of absorption benefits granted by the Supreme
Court in Sunil Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P.
and others, (2016) 1 SCC 397.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Avnish Kumar Srivastava; Radha Kant Ojha, Sr.
Adv.; Shivendu Ojha; Madan Lal Srivastava;
Yogesh Kumar Saxena; R.K. Singh Gaharwar;

## Text

7 All. Hriday Narain Pandey & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
825
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 825
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ-A No. 46032 of 2017
Alongwith other connected cases

Hriday Narain Pandey & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Avnish Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the claim of retrenched
employees of U.P. Cement Corporation for
absorption
in
any
alternative
government
department in terms of the Uttar Pradesh
Absorption
of
Retrenched
Employees
of
Government
or
Public
Corporations
in
Government Service Rules, 1991 (Rules of
1991), and for the extension of the benefit of
absorption
granted
to
other
retrenched
employees of the same Corporation by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar
Verma vs. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 1
SCC 397.
Headnotes
Service Law - Absorption - Retrenched
Employees - U.P. Cement Corporation -
Petitioners, retrenched in 1999 - sought
absorption under 1991 Rules - Claim hit
by delay and laches - Judgment in rem or
in persona - Delay - Laches - Fencesitters
-
Rescission
Act,
2009
-
Retrospective effect - Petitioners therein
already absorbed and claiming pension -
Facts distinguishable - Not applicable.
Held: Judgment in Sunil Kumar Verma (2016) 1
SCC 397 was in persona and applicable only to
appellants therein - Petitioners were neither
parties before learned Single Judge, Division
Bench nor Supreme Court, despite litigation
continuing from 2003 to 2016 - Petitioners
approached this Court after 19 years without
any steps during said period - They were fencesitters - Litigation having remained pending for
13 years for similarly placed employees,
petitioners cannot now claim same benefit -
Division Bench decision in State of U.P. v.
Shambhu Nath Srivastava, squarely applicable -
Similar claim of retrenched employees of U.P.
State
Cement
Corporation
rejected
after
considering Sunil Kumar Verma and Act of 2009
- No reason to take a different view - 'Act of
2009' expressly bars claim of absorption for
those not absorbed till 8.4.2003 - Petitioners not
protected thereunder - Right under 1991 Rules
deemed terminated - Facts of State of U.P. v.
Shiv Jag Sharma & Ors., distinguishable, as
petitioners therein were already absorbed-Not
applicable - All writ petitions dismissed. (Para
4,15,17,18 ,19,20,21,22,24) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sunil Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2016) 1 SCC 397; Official Liquidator v.
Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1: (2009) 1 SCC
(L&S) 943;State of U.P. and others vs. Shiv
Jag Sharma and others, 2023: AHC:155290DB; State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Srivastava
and others, 2019: AHC:98463-DB; State of
U.P. and others vs. Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh and
others, 2025: AHC:7569-DB; Ajit Raizada and
others vs. State of U.P., 2011 (6) ADJ 511;
Prabhu Nath Prasad v. State of U.P., (2007) 2
All LJ 280.

List of Acts
U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of
Government
or
Public
Corporations
in
Government Service Rules, 1991 ("Rules of
1991")
U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of
Government
or
Public
Corporations
in
Government Service (Rescission of Rules) Rules,
2003 ("Rules of 2003")
Uttar
Pradesh
Absorption
of
Retrenched
Employees
of
Government
or
Public
Corporations in Government Service (Rescission
of Rules) Act, 2009 ("Act of 2009")

List of Keywords
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Retrenched employees - absorption - rescission
- fence-sitter - judicial discipline - pension - in
rem - in persona - Rescission Rules - alternative
government department.

Case Arising From
Writ-A No. 46032 of 2017 Along with other
connected cases, filed by retrenched employees
of the U.P. Cement Corporation (wound up in
1999), seeking a direction for their absorption in
alternative government departments under the
Uttar
Pradesh
Absorption
of
Retrenched
Employees
of
Government
or
Public
Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991
(Rules of 1991) and also sought the extension
of absorption benefits granted by the Supreme
Court in Sunil Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P.
and others, (2016) 1 SCC 397.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Avnish Kumar Srivastava; Radha Kant Ojha, Sr.
Adv.; Shivendu Ojha; Madan Lal Srivastava;
Yogesh Kumar Saxena; R.K. Singh Gaharwar;
Vijay Kumar; Kanhaiya Lal; Abhay Kumar
Srivastava;
Shatrughan
Sonwal;
Pankaj
Srivastava; Animesh Srivastava; Krishna Pratap
Singh Kaushik; Rahul Kumar Tiwari.

Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C.; Abhishek Srivastava, Chief Standing
Counsel; P.K. Shahi, Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel; Ashish Agarwal (for Official Liquidator).

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

1. Petitioners in present bunch of writ
petitions are retrenched employees of U.P.
Cement Corporation which was wounded
way back in the year 1999 and have
approached this Court that their claim for
absorption in any alternative government
department be considered in terms of Uttar
Pradesh
Absorption
of
Retrenched
Employees of Government or Public
Corporations in Government Service Rules,
1991 (for short "Rules of 1991") as well as
that benefit of absorption granted to other
retrenched employees of same Corporation
by a judgment of Supreme Court in Sunil
Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P. and
others, (2016) 1 SCC 397 be extended to
them also.

2. S/Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu
Ojha, Advocate as well as Sri Madan Lal
Srivastava, Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Sri
R.K. Singh Gaharwar, Sri Vijay Kumar, Sri
Kanhaiya
Lal,
Sri
Abhay
Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Shatrughan Sonwal, Sri
Pankaj Srivastava, Sri Animesh Srivastava,
Sri Krishna Pratap Singh Kaushik and Sri
Rahul
Kumar Tiwari, Advocates
for
petitioners have vehemently urged that
petitioners were before this Court through
their Association way back in the year
1998, when Corporation was under process
of winding by way of filing a Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 21199/1998, which was
disposed of vide order dated 07.07.1998
that claim of petitioners therein be
considered for absorption in accordance
with law. For reference, relevant part of
said order is quoted below :-

"Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioners. This petition is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioners to make a
representation to the authority concerned
regarding his grievance and the same will
be decided within two months of the
production of certificate of copy of this
order in accordance with law."

3. Learned Senior Advocate for
petitioners has further submitted that
despite
various
communications
and
representations, submitted in pursuance of
above referred order, their respective claim
for absorption were not considered.

4. Learned Senior Advocate has not
disputed that they were not party in writ
7 All. Hriday Narain Pandey & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
827
petitions which ultimately reached up to
Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma
(supra) i.e. neither they were party before
learned Single Judge nor before Division
Bench of this Court nor before Supreme
Court, despite said litigation remained
pending before above Courts from 2003 to
2016 (i.e. for 13 years), when finally the
Supreme Court has passed above referred
judgment of Sunil Kumar Verma (supra).

5. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that in Sunil Kumar
Verma (supra), relevant provisions of
'Rules of 1991', subsequent Rule viz. UP
Absorption of Retrenched Employees of
Government or Public Corporations in
Government Service (Rescission of Rules)
Rules, 2003 (for short "Rules of 2003") and
also
Uttar
Pradesh
Absorption
of
Retrenched Employees of Government or
Public Corporations in Government Service
(Rescission of Rules) Act, 2009 (for short
"Act of 2009") were considered and taken
note of and only thereafter has passed
direction for absorption of the appellants
before Supreme Court. However, they were
not able to much dispute that Supreme
Court in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) has
passed directions only qua to appellants
therein. Learned Senior Advocate for
petitioner was failed to show any part of
said judgment that there was a direction
that effect of said judgment would be
applicable to other retrenched employees
also, whether or not they were before the
Court. For reference, directions made by
the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma
(supra) are mentioned below :-

"22. We have highlighted this
aspect as we intend to ingeminate that this
kind of unnecessary enthusiastic quest
should be avoided. It is because it is
contrary to the principles of judicial
discipline. In this regard reference to
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10
SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] would
be apt. In the said ruling, it has been
observed thus : (SCC p. 52, para 78)

"78. There have been several
instances of different Benches of the High
Courts not following the judgments/orders
of coordinate and even larger Benches. In
some cases, the High Courts have gone to
the extent of ignoring the law laid down by
this Court without any tangible reason.
Likewise, there have been instances in
which smaller Benches of this Court have
either ignored or bypassed the ratio of the
judgments of the larger Benches including
the Constitution Benches. These cases are
illustrative of non-adherence to the rule of
judicial discipline which is sine qua non for
sustaining the system."

23. In view of the aforesaid
analysis, we find no reason that the
appellants herein should not reap the
benefits of absorption and, accordingly, it is
directed that they shall be absorbed by the
State Government as per their seniority and
be given the benefit of increments, within
eight weeks hence. Needless to say, they
will be entitled to their seniority as per the
prevalent rules. If anyone has been retired
from service, he shall get the retiral
benefits inclusive of pension.

24. At this juncture, the question
arises as to what amount should be paid
towards back wages. In this context, our
attention has been invited to the order
passed
by
this
Court
in
contempt
proceeding. However, after some debate,
the learned counsel for the appellants left it
to the discretion of this Court. Ms Reena
Singh,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General for the State vehemently opposed
with regard to grant of any back wages.
Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties on this score and regard being had
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the facts and circumstances of the case,
we think that the cause of justice would be
best subserved if each of the appellant is
paid 40% of the back wages, and it is so
directed. It shall be computed as per our
directions issued here-in-before within a
period of twelve weeks hence and be paid
to the appellants."

6. Learned Senior Advocate for
petitioners have also vehemently placed
reliance upon a judgment passed by
Division Bench of this Court in bunch of
Special Appeals leading being State of U.P.
and others vs. Shiv Jag Sharma and
others,
2023:AHC:155290-DB
that
petitioners
therein
were
retrenched
employees of Churk and Dala Cement
Factories established by Government of
U.P. who were benefited with the direction
that they be entitled for pension and ratio of
law as held therein is applicable in present
case also.

7. Learned Senior Advocate for
petitioners have also referred following
paragraphs
of
Sunil
Kumar Verma
(supra) that provisions of 'Act of 2009'
will not act as an adverse factor to negate
the claim of petitioners for absorption.

"13. The
Division
Bench
expressed the view that the decision
in Subhash
Prasad [
Special
Appeal
Defective No. 233 of 2007, order dated 153-2007 (All)] was squarely applicable and
governed the field. It also referred to the
decision in Prabhu Nath Prasad v. State of
U.P. [2007 SCC OnLine All 1221 : (2007)
2 All LJ 280] , wherein the learned Single
Judge had opined that merely because some
incumbents had been offered appointment
under the cover of the orders passed by the
Court, it will not improve the case of the
petitioners therein as two wrongs would not
make a thing right. Endorsing the said
view, the Division Bench proceeded to state
that : (Sunil Kumar Verma case [State of
U.P. v. Sunil Kumar Verma, 2010 SCC
OnLine All 2581 : (2010) 5 All LJ 582] ,
SCC OnLine All paras 94-96)

"94. ... We having found that the
right of consideration for absorption under
the 1991 Rules having come to an end after
the Rescission Rules, 2003, no mandamus
can be issued for enforcing the said right.
However, it is relevant to note that under
the Rescission Rules, 2003 as well as under
the 2009 Act certain benefits have been
provided to the retrenched employees even
after 8-4-2003. The retrenched employees
i.e. writ petitioners are fully entitled to take
the benefit of the aforesaid Rule 3(ii) of the
Rescission Rules, 2003 and Section 3(2) of
the 2009 Act.

95. The appeals filed by the
retrenched employees challenging the order
of the learned Single Judge in Prabhu Nath
Prasad case [2007 SCC OnLine All 1221 :
(2007) 2 All LJ 280] deserves to be and are
hereby dismissed in view of the foregoing
discussions. Thus, all the appeals of Group
I, Group III and Group IV are partly
allowed setting aside the directions issued
by the learned Single Judge for absorbing
the writ petitioners.

96. However, it is directed that
retrenched employees of U.P. Cement
Corporation, Bhadohi Woollen Mills and
U.P. State Sugar Corporation shall be
entitled for the benefits as contemplated
under Rule 3(ii) of the Rescission Rules,
2003 and saved under Section 3(2) of the
2009 Act on Group C and Group D posts.""

8. Per contra, S/Sri Abhishek
Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel
assisted by Sri P.K. Shahi, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for State-Respondents
and Sri Ashish Agarwal, Advocate for
7 All. Hriday Narain Pandey & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
829
Official Liquidator have vehemently placed
reliance on provisions of 'Act of 2009' and
for reference, relevant part of Act of 2009
are mentioned hereinafter :-

"3. Rescission and saving

(1) The Absorption Rules which
was rescinded with effect from April 8,
2003 by the Rescission Rules shall be
rescinded and be deemed to have been
rescinded on May 9, 1991 and consequent
upon such rescission,-

(a) the retrenched employees
except those who were absorbed during the
period from May 9, 1991 to April 8, 2003
shall have no claim with regard to their
absorption rules or under any Government
orders issued in regard thereto and their
right regarding absorption accrued under
the absorption Rules shall be deemed
terminated.

(b) the orders of the Government
issued from time to time prescribing the
norms
of
absorption
for
retrenched
employees of a particular Government
Department or Public Corporation in
Government Service and granting of
consequential
benefits
including
pay
protection shall stand revoked ab-initio.

(2)
Notwithstanding
such
rescission,-

(a) the benefit of absorption
provided to the retrenched employees
absorbed before April 8, 2003 under the
provisions of the Absorption Rules, shall
not be withdrawn;

(b) the benefit of pay protection
granted to the retrenched employees
absorbed prior to April 8, 2003 shall also be
maintained.

(c)
a
retrenched
employee
covered by the Absorption Rules, but who
has not been absorbed till April 8, 2003
shall be entitled to get relaxation in upper
age limit for direct recruitment to such
Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts which are
outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission to the extent he
has rendered his continuous services in
substantive capacity in the concerned
Government Department or the Public
Corporation in completed years.

4. Rescinded of Rules :-

The
Rescission
Rules,
be
rescinded and be deemed to have been
rescinded on April 8, 2003."

9. Learned advocates for respondents
have submitted that in view of above
provisions of 'Act of 2009', claim of
petitioners, if any, stands negated as well as
that provisions of 'Act of 2009' are not
under challenge at the behest of petitioners
in present bunch of writ petitions.

10.

Learned
Advocates
for
respondents have also placed reliance on
two judgments passed by Division Bench
of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Shambhu
Nath
Srivastava
and
others,
2019:AHC:98463-DB and State of U.P.
and others vs. Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh
and others, 2025:AHC:7569-DB.

11.

Learned
Advocates
for
respondents have further submitted that
Shambhu Nath Srivastava (supra) is in
regard retrenched employees of U.P. State
Cement Corporation and it is squarely
applicable in present bunch of cases against
the petitioners since similar claim was
rejected after taking note of Sunil Kumar
Verma (supra) and effect of Act of 2009
and they have referred following relevant
paragraphs of said judgment which are
quoted below :-

"18. By Section 4, Rules 2003
have been rescinded with effect from 8th
April, 2003. Therefore, Recession Act,
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2009 in fact has made entire slate clear
which was initiated by Absorption Rules,
1991 and ended by Rules, 2003. Still
litigation
continued,
hence
State
Legislature intervened and both the Rules,
from the date of their enforcement, have
been rescinded. In respect of Absorption
Rules, 1991, there is a deeming clause,
rescinding the same with effect from 9th
May, 1991 but subject to some protection in
Section 3.

19. Section 3(1)(a) of Recession
Act, 2009 clearly declares that except those
retrenched employees who were absorbed
during 9th May,1991 and 8th April, 2003,
all unabsorbed retrenched employees shall
have no claim with regard to their
absorption under Absorption Rules, 1991 or
under any Government Order issued in that
regard and their right relating to absorption
accrued under absorption Rules shall be
deemed terminated. Thus no protection has
been made to a person not already absorbed
till 8.4.2003. Section 3(1)(a) of Recession
Act, 2009 clearly bars any right of
absorption to any retrenched employee
governed by Rules, 1991, if not already
absorbed and now no such right survive.

20. There is a little protection
provided
under
Section
3(2)(c)
to
retrenched employees who have not been
absorbed with regard to relaxations in
upper age limit for direct recruitment on
Group ''C' and ''D' posts. Except protection
with regard to relaxations in upper age limit
given vide Section 3(2)(c), petitioner or any
other person like him, after promulgation of
Recession Act, 2009, cannot be allowed
any absorption as Absorption Rules, 1991
have been rescinded from the date of their
promulgation, i.e. 9th May, 1991, leaving
no such right open to the petitioner or any
person like him.

21. With regard to relaxations,
some are even otherwise provided under
different Service Rules framed under
proviso to Article 309 of Constitution,
applicable to different departments and a
detailed discussion we find in a Single
Judge judgement rendered in Ajit Raizada
and others Versus State of U.P. and others,
2011 (6) ADJ 511.

22. We are also opinion of a
decision of Apex Court in Sunil Kumar
Verma and others Versus State of U.P. and
others in Civil Appeal Nos. 9165 to 9172 of
2010, decided on 09.09.2016 but we find
that therein incumbents were already
appointed, hence and Court had no
occasion to apply effect and consequences
under Recession Act, 2009. Therefore, in
our view, aforesaid judgement has no
application in this appeal.

23. Be that as it may, we have
already discussed Absorption Rules, 1991
in the light of present scenario, where State
Legislature has rescinded aforesaid Rules
vide Rescission Act, 2009 with deeming
clause with effect from 9th May, 1991, i.e.
the date on which aforesaid Rule."

12.

Learned
Advocates
for
respondents have further submitted that
same proposition of law was followed in
Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh (supra).

13. In rejoinder, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for petitioners have
submitted
that
in
the
judgment
of
Shambhu Nath Srivastava (supra), the
Division
Bench,
in
a
very
short
observation, has rejected the effect of
judgment of Supreme Court in Sunil
Kumar Verma (supra) and in case there
are two contrary judgments of Division
Benches on a same legal issue, this Bench
may refer the matter to Larger Bench by
making a request to Hon'ble The Chief
Justice.

14. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the records.
7 All. Hriday Narain Pandey & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
831

15. Court has already observed in
preceding paragraphs that judgment of
Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) is not in rem
rather it is a judgment of in persona limited
to appellants therein and for that Court also
takes note of orders passed in earlier rounds
of litigation wherein petitioners were also
not party as well as that directions made in
paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of Sunil Kumar
Verma (supra) (already quoted in earlier
paragraphs).

16. Even after observing above, it
cannot be denied that petitioners may have
a benefit of law as crystalized by Supreme
Court in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) if they
are similarly retrenched employees and
would able to satisfy that they were active
towards their claim i.e. whether they were
fence-sitter or not as well as effect of 'Act
of 2009' and Shambhu Nath Srivastava
(supra)
wherein
identical
claim
of
similarly
retrenched
employees
was
rejected after taking note of Sunil Kumar
Verma (supra) is also required to be taken
note of.

17. It is admitted case of petitioners
on basis of averments made in this writ
petition as well as on basis of submissions
that for claim of absorption, they were
lastly approached this Court way back in
the year 1998 i.e. after 19 years present
bunch of writ petitions was filed. No
substantial argument or submission or
documents are placed along with these writ
petitions
that
they
have
regularly
approached before concerned respondents
for absorption during said period of 19
years.

18. On basis of material available, it
is not much disputed that litigation was
pending before Single Bench, Division
Bench of this Court as well as before
Supreme Court for about more than 13
years involving similar issues but the
petitioners have never taken any steps to
become party either before Single Bench,
Division
Bench
or
Supreme
Court.
Therefore, Court is of considered view that
petitioners are fence-sitter and awake from
a long slumber of 19 years and approached
this Court in the year 2017 only after issue
was crystallized on basis of writ petitioners
who were before Courts for 13 years and
finally, the Supreme Court passed a
judgment in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra).

19. The Court is also of the view that
judgment passed by Division Bench in
Shambhu Nath Srivastava (supra) is
squarely against the case of petitioners
whereby Division Bench has rejected the
similar claim of retrenched employees of
U.P. Cement Corporation as well as
distinguished Sunil Kumar Verma (supra)
also. There is no reason to take a different
view.

20. So far as judgment of Shiv Jag
Sharma and others (supra) is concerned,
it was in regard to grant of pension to
retired employees of U.P. Rajya Cement
Nigam Ltd. at Churk and petitioners therein
were already absorbed in State services,
whereas petitioners herein were admittedly
not absorbed, therefore, facts of Shiv Jag
Sharma
and
others
(supra)
are
distinguishable and it are not applicable to
present case.

21. Court also takes note of Act of
2009 which is absolutely against the
petitioners' claim as in terms of Section (3)
of the Act, "Absorption Rules which was
rescinded with effect from April 8, 2003 by
the Rescission Rules shall be rescinded
and be deemed to have been rescinded on
May 9, 1991" and petitioners were not
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
protected as well as now they could not
take benefit of Rules of 1991.

22. Court also takes note of 'Rules of
2003' and 'Rules of 2009' as discussed in
Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) wherein
Supreme Court has upheld judgment given
by Learned Single Judge that petitioners
therein were before respondents before
Rules of 2003 came into force, therefore,
its benefit was granted whereas in present
case, as referred above, petitioners were
sleeping for a very long period, therefore,
adverse effect of Act of 2009 would
definitely fall upon them.

23.

Considering
overall
circumstances, this Court does not find any
ground to grant relief to petitioners.

24. Accordingly, all writ petitions are
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 832
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 1552 of 2020

Ajay Kumar Singhal ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Mr. Tarun Gaur, S.C., Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Deputy Director
of Consolidation could legally disturb the
petitioner's Chak, allotted on plot no. 258, in a
highly time-barred proceeding initiated under
SS. 9-A (2) and 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953, after delivery of
possession and final notification under S. 52.

Headnotes
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(U.P. C.H. Act) - SS. 4, 9-A (2), 21(1), 52 -
Consolidation
proceedings
-
Chak
allotment - Disturbance of Chak at a late
stage on time-barred objection - Once
proceedings
under
S.
9-A(2)
attain
finality, the same issue cannot be reagitated under S. 21(1) - allotment of
Chak proceeding cannot be initiated at
any time during consolidation operation
on the ground that plot in question is the
original road-side plot of the tenure holder
concerned, especially when no proper
objection was filed within the limitation.
Held: Once the relief for declaring plot no.258
as Chak Out under S. 9-A (2) had been refused
by the consolidation authorities and the said
order maintained by the High Court in Writ-B
No.42518 of 2015, the consolidation authorities
had no jurisdiction to subsequently declare any
area of the said plot as Chak Out in a Chak
allotment proceeding - Entire procedure adopted
under S. 21(1), without condonation of delay
and after notification under Section 52, was
illegal - Impugned orders dated 18.11.2020
(Deputy Director of Consolidation), 8.6.2015
(Settlement Officer of Consolidation), and
13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015 (Consolidation Officer)
cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are
accordingly set aside - Petition allowed - No
order as to costs.(Paras 10,11,12,13,14,15)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Writ-B
No.42518
of
2015
(decided
on
31.7.2015) (regarding refusal to declare plot no.
258 as Chak out under S.9-A (2) of the U.P.
C.H. Act).

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953

List of Keywords
Time-barred objection - Chak allotment - Chak
out - declaration under Section 9-A (2) - finality
of
proceedings
-
Deputy
Director
of