# Manisha Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1305
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 4821 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manisha-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49875
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law -claim for the payment of
gratuity and pension of deceased husband
of
petitioner
rejected-husband
not
working against a sanctioned post-service
never regularised despite working for his
entire life with the department-petitioner
entitled
for
pension
under
U.
P.
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
development
Authorities
Centralised
Services Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011.

B. State Government cannot be involved in
exploitative
labour
practice-persona
cannot be engaged on temporary basis for
long periods-refusing the benefits of
regular employees-services of petitioner's
husband are liable to be treated as regular
service-Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service
for Pension and Validation Act, 2021-
applicable only on the State Government
employees-even otherwise, the Act of
2021 has been read down- petitioner
entitled to regular pension and other
retiral benefits-Petition allowed.

HELD:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the
State Government cannot be involved in
exploitative labour practice. It cannot engage
persons on temporary basis for long periods
refusing to grant them benefits of regular
employees. Suffice would be to refer to the
judgment in case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P.
and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516.

Therefore, in view of the law settled by the
Supreme Court settled by the Supreme Court in
the case of Prem Singh (Supra) and the period
spent by the petitioner's husband and the fact
that he was also getting all the service benefits
at par with regular employees, the services of
petitioner's husband are liable to be treated as
regular service.

The present Rules of 2011 are parallel to the
Rules of State Government which have been
read down by the Supreme Court, being held in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, as they create an artificial categorization
of similarly situated employees. In the present
case also, an artificial classification is created as
admittedly,
as
the
employees
on
adhoc
appointments perform the same duties as the
regular employees and are throughout treated
as the regular employee. Thus, the matter is
squarely covered by the law settled in case of
Prem Singh (Supra).

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:
1.Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2019) 10
SCC 516

2.Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs
St. of U.P. & ors.)

## Text

4 All. Manisha Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1305
the truth by procedure sanctioned by law.
At the same time, the discretionary power
vested under Section 311 CrPC has to be
exercised judiciously for strong and valid
reasons
and
with
caution
and
circumspection to meet the ends of justice."

18. In the aforesaid case, the appeal
was allowed by the apex court and the
order of High Court was set aside and order
of the trial court regarding summoning of
the witnesses and production of document
was restored.

19. Mentioning the name of all
witnesses in FIR or in statements u/s 161
CrPC is not a requirement of law. Such
witnesses can also be examined by
prosecution with the permission of the
court. Non-mentioning of the name of any
witness in the FIR would not justify
rejection of evidence of the eye-witness. In
para 13 of Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of
M.P, 2002 (44) ACC 1112 (SC) it was held
that that there is no requirement of law for
mentioning the names of all the witnesses
in the FIR, the object of which is only to set
the criminal law in motion. In the cited case
Kiran (PW 7) herself was injured and being
the niece of Hari Ram (deceased), had no
reason to involve innocent persons in the
commission of the crime. In addition to the
above citation in Raj Kishor Jha Vs. State
of Bihar, 2003 (47) ACC 1068 (SC),
Chittarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003)
6 SCC 397, Shri Bhagwan Vs. State of
Rajasthan, (2001) 6 SCC 296, Satnam
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 1
SCC 662, the Apex Court has held similar
principles of law.

20. On the basis of above discussion
this Court comes to the conclusion that the
trial Court has committed manifest error in
not considering the previous order dated
9.10.2012 and it has also been failed in
considering the recall application in right
prospective hence, this application is liable
to be allowed.

ORDER

This application is allowed and
the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 is
quashed and the application under section
311 Cr.P.C is allowed. The learned trial
court is directed to summon the witness
PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-8 for their
cross examination by and on behalf of the
applicant Mahboob Pandey. It is also
directed that the learned trial court shall
provide sufficient opportunity to the
applicant for cross examination for the
aforesaid witnesses.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1305
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-A No. 4821 of 2023

Manisha Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Shalini Mishra, Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey

A. Service Law -claim for the payment of
gratuity and pension of deceased husband
of
petitioner
rejected-husband
not
working against a sanctioned post-service
never regularised despite working for his
entire life with the department-petitioner
entitled
for
pension
under
U.
P.
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
development
Authorities
Centralised
Services Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011.

B. State Government cannot be involved in
exploitative
labour
practice-persona
cannot be engaged on temporary basis for
long periods-refusing the benefits of
regular employees-services of petitioner's
husband are liable to be treated as regular
service-Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service
for Pension and Validation Act, 2021-
applicable only on the State Government
employees-even otherwise, the Act of
2021 has been read down- petitioner
entitled to regular pension and other
retiral benefits-Petition allowed.

HELD:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the
State Government cannot be involved in
exploitative labour practice. It cannot engage
persons on temporary basis for long periods
refusing to grant them benefits of regular
employees. Suffice would be to refer to the
judgment in case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P.
and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516.

Therefore, in view of the law settled by the
Supreme Court settled by the Supreme Court in
the case of Prem Singh (Supra) and the period
spent by the petitioner's husband and the fact
that he was also getting all the service benefits
at par with regular employees, the services of
petitioner's husband are liable to be treated as
regular service.

The present Rules of 2011 are parallel to the
Rules of State Government which have been
read down by the Supreme Court, being held in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, as they create an artificial categorization
of similarly situated employees. In the present
case also, an artificial classification is created as
admittedly,
as
the
employees
on
adhoc
appointments perform the same duties as the
regular employees and are throughout treated
as the regular employee. Thus, the matter is
squarely covered by the law settled in case of
Prem Singh (Supra).

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:
1.Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2019) 10
SCC 516

2.Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs
St. of U.P. & ors.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

2. Present writ petition is filed by the
petitioner challenging the orders dated
22.11.2022 and 17.1.2023 whereby the
respondents have rejected the claim of the
petitioner for payment of gratuity and
pension of late husband of the petitioner on
the ground that husband of the petitioner
was not working against the sanctioned
post.

3. The husband of the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Assistant Cost
Accountant
on
probation
basis
on
18.06.1988 and he continued to work
regularly. The husband of the petitioner
expired on 11.06.2019. The husband of the
petitioner was working regularly and
regular service benefits including the
revised pay scale and allowances and
benefit of ACP were given by the
respondents from time to time.

4. It is sad to note that petitioner's
husband services were never regularized
despite his having spent the entire working
life with the department. During his service
period, petitioner was also provided all the
service benefits as provided to the regular
employees. Thus, for all practical purposes,
petitioner was treated as regular employee.

5. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that the State Government cannot be
involved in exploitative labour practice. It
4 All. Manisha Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1307
cannot engage persons on temporary basis
for long periods refusing to grant them
benefits of regular employees. Suffice
would be to refer to the judgment in case of
Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2019) 10 SCC 516. The Supreme Court in
the said judgment, held:

"31. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it was unfair on the part of
the State Government and its officials to
take work from the employees on the workcharged basis. They ought to have resorted
to an appointment on regular basis. The
taking of work on the work-charged basis
for
long
amounts
to
adopting
the
exploitative device. Later on, though their
services have been regularised. However,
the period spent by them in the workcharged
establishment
has
not
been
counted towards the qualifying service.
Thus, they have not only been deprived of
their due emoluments during the period
they served on less salary in work-charged
establishment but have also been deprived
of counting of the period for pensionary
benefits as if no services had been rendered
by them. The State has been benefitted by
the services rendered by them in the
heydays of their life on less salary in workcharged establishment.

.....

36. There are some of the
employees
who
have
not
been
regularised in spite of having rendered
the services for 30-40 or more years
whereas they have been superannuated.
As they have worked in the workcharged establishment, not against any
particular project, their services ought
to have been regularised under the
Government instructions and even as
per the decision of this Court in State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . This
Court in the said decision has laid
down that in case services have been
rendered for more than ten years
without the cover of the Court's order,
as one-time measure, the services be
regularised of such employees. In the
facts of the case, those employees who
have worked for ten years or more
should have been regularised. It would
not be proper to regulate them for
consideration
of
regularisation
as
others have been regularised, we direct
that their services be treated as a
regular one. However, it is made clear
that they shall not be entitled to
claiming any dues of difference in
wages had they been continued in
service regularly before attaining the
age of superannuation. They shall be
entitled to receive the pension as if they
have
retired
from
the
regular
establishment and the services rendered
by them right from the day they entered
the work-charged establishment shall
be counted as qualifying service for
purpose of pension."

6. Therefore, in view of the law
settled by the Supreme Court settled by
the Supreme Court in the case of Prem
Singh (Supra) and the period spent by
the petitioner's husband and the fact
that he was also getting all the service
benefits at par with regular employees,
the services of petitioner's husband are
liable to be treated as regular service.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner
further submits that he is entitled for
pension
under
U.P.
Development
Authorities
Centralized
Services
Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011 (Rules
of 2011). Reference is made to Rule
2(jha), which reads as follows:
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(झ) "अहतकारी सेिा" का तात्पयत
सेिा के ककसी सदस्य की ऐसी सेिा से है जो
ननम्नभलर्खत शतों को पूरा करता होः-

(एक) सेिा ककसी प्राधिकरण के
अिीन अिचय हो,

(दो)
ननयोजन
िौभलक/ननयभित/स्थायी अिचय हो,

(तीन) सेिा का िुगतान ककसी
प्राधिकरण द्िारा अिचय ककया जाता हो,

(चार) ककसी प्राधिकरण के अिीन गैर
पेंशनयोग्य
अधिष्ठान
िें
अस्थायी
या
स्थानापन्न सेिा को छो़िकर सेिा की अिधि,

(पांच) ककसी कायत प्रिाररत अधिष्ठान
िें सेिा की अिधि और,

(छह) आकजस्िक व्यय से िुगतान
ककये जाने िाले पद िें सेिा की अिधि :

परन्तु यह कक सेिा के ककसी सदस्य
की सेिा क्षनत पूनतत उपदान के भसिाय पेंशन
और उपदान के भलए तब तक अहत नहीं होगी
जब तक कक उसने बीस िषत की सेिा पूरी न
कर ली हो :

परन्तु,
यह
और
कक
ककसी
सुिारन्यास, प्राधिकरण, पाभलका, बोडत, ननगि,
केन्र या राज्यसरकार के अिीन ननरन्तर
अस्थायी या स्थानापन्न सेिा की अिधि की
गणना अहतकारी सेिा के रूप िें की जायेगी यदद
उसी या ककसी अन्य पद पर सेिा के ककसी
व्यििान के बबना बाद िें उसे स्थायी कर ददया
जाय।

दटप्पणीः- यदद ककसी पेंशन रदहत
अधिष्ठान, कायत प्रिाररत अधिष्ठान िें या
आकजस्िकता व्यय से िुगतान ककये जाने िाले
ककसी पद पर की गयी सेिा ककसी पेंशनयुक्त
अधिष्ठान िें अस्थायी सेिा की दो अिधि के
बीच िें या ककसी पेंशनयुक्त अधिष्ठान िें
अस्थायी सेिा और स्थायी सेिा की अिधि के
बीच िें प़िती हो तो िह सेिा का व्यििान नहीं
होगी।"

8. Further submission is that similar
rules prevailed with regard to employees of
the State Government which also provide
non-counting of services performed on
work charge basis. A three Judge's Bench
of Supreme Court on reference in case of
Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2019) 10 SCC 516 considered their
entitlement for pension. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment reads:

"8.
We
first
consider
the
provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh
Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (for short
the 1961 Rules). Rule 3(8) of the 1961
Rules which contains the provisions in
respect of qualifying service is extracted
hereunder:

3. In these rules, unless is anything
repugnant in the subject or context

(1)-(7) * * *

(8) Qualifying service means
service which qualifies for pension in
accordance with the provisions of Article
368 of the Civil Services Regulations:

Provided
that
continuous
temporary or officiating service under the
Government of Uttar Pradesh followed
without interruption by confirmation in the
same or any other post except

(i) periods of temporary or
officiating service in a non-pensionable
establishment;

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

(iii) periods of service in a post
paid from contingencies shall also count as
qualifying service.
4 All. Manisha Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1309

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.

9. Regulations 361, 368 and 370
of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services
Regulations are also relevant. They are
extracted hereunder:

361. The service of an officer
does not qualify for pension unless it
conforms to the following three conditions:

First The service must be under
Government.

Second. The employment must be
substantive and permanent.

These three conditions are fully
explained in the following Regulations.

368. Service does not qualify
unless the officer holds a substantive office
on a permanent establishment.

370. Continuous temporary or
officiating service under the Government of
Uttar
Pradesh
followed
without
interruption by confirmation in the same or
any other post shall qualify, except

(i) periods of temporary or
officiating
service
in
non-pensionable
establishment;

(ii) periods of service in workcharged establishment; and

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

10. The qualifying service is the
one which is in accordance with the
provisions of Regulation 368 i.e. holding a
substantive
post
on
a
permanent
establishment. The proviso to Rule 3(8)
clarify that continuous, temporary or
officiating
service
followed
without
interruption by confirmation in the same or
any other post is also included in the
qualifying service except in the case of
periods of temporary and officiating
service in a non-pensionable establishment.
The service in work-charged establishment
and period of service in a post paid from
contingencies shall also not count as
qualifying service.

11. The Note appended to Rule
3(8) contains a provision that if the service
is
rendered
in
a
non-pensionable
establishment, work-charged 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. Thus, the Note
contains a clear provision to count the
qualifying service rendered in workcharged, contingency paid and nonpensionable establishment to be counted
towards
pensionable
service,
in
the
exigencies provided therein.

12. The provisions contained in
Regulation 370 of the Civil Services
Regulations excludes service in a nonpensionable establishment, work-charged
establishment and in a post paid from
contingencies
from
the
purview
of
qualifying service. Under Regulation 361
of the Civil Services Regulations, the
services must be under the Government and
the employment must be substantive and
permanent basis.

.........

30. We are not impressed by the
aforesaid submissions. The appointment of
the work-charged employee in question had
been made on monthly salary and they
were required to cross the efficiency bar
also. How their services are qualitatively
different from regular employees? No
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material indicating qualitative difference
has been pointed out except making bald
statement. The appointment was not made
for a particular project which is the basic
concept of the work-charged employees.
Rather, the very concept of work-charged
employment has been misused by offering
the employment on exploitative terms for
the work which is regular and perennial in
nature. The work-charged employees had
been subjected to transfer from one place
to another like regular employees as
apparent from documents placed on
record. In Narain Dutt Sharma v. State of
U.P. [CA No. ______2019 arising out of
SLP (C) No. 5775 of 2018] the appellants
were allowed to cross efficiency bar, after
''8' years of continuous service, even during
the period of work-charged services.
Narain Dutt Sharma, the appellant, was
appointed as a work-charged employee as
Gej Mapak with effect from 15-9-1978.
Payment used to be made monthly but the
appointment was made in the pay scale of
Rs 200-320. Initially, he was appointed in
the year 1978 on a fixed monthly salary of
Rs 205 per month. They were allowed to
cross efficiency bar also as the benefit of
pay scale was granted to them during the
period
they
served
as
work-charged
employees they served for three to four
decades and later on services have been
regularised time to time by different orders.
However, the services of some of the
appellants in few petitions/appeals have not
been regularised even though they had
served for several decades and ultimately
reached the age of superannuation.

31. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it was unfair on the part of
the State Government and its officials to
take work from the employees on the workcharged basis. They ought to have resorted
to an appointment on regular basis. The
taking of work on the work-charged basis
for
long
amounts
to
adopting
the
exploitative device. Later on, though their
services have been regularised. However,
the period spent by them in the workcharged
establishment
has
not
been
counted towards the qualifying service.
Thus, they have not only been deprived of
their due emoluments during the period
they served on less salary in work-charged
establishment but have also been deprived
of counting of the period for pensionary
benefits as if no services had been rendered
by them. The State has been benefitted by
the services rendered by them in the
heydays of their life on less salary in workcharged establishment.

32. In view of the Note appended
to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, there is a
provision to count service spent on workcharged, contingencies or non-pensionable
service, in case, a person has rendered
such service in a given between period of
two
temporary
appointments
in
the
pensionable establishment or has rendered
such service in the interregnum two periods
of temporary and permanent employment.
The work-charged service can be counted
as qualifying service for pension in the
aforesaid exigencies.

33. The question arises whether
the imposition of rider that such service to
be counted has to be rendered in-between
two spells of temporary or temporary and
permanent service is legal and proper. We
find that once regularisation had been
made on vacant posts, though the employee
had not served prior to that on temporary
basis,
considering
the
nature
of
appointment, though it was not a regular
appointment it was made on monthly salary
and thereafter in the pay scale of workcharged establishment the efficiency bar
was permitted to be crossed. It would be
highly
discriminatory
and
irrational
because of the rider contained in the Note
4 All. Manisha Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1311
to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count
such service particularly, when it can be
counted, in case such service is sandwiched
between two temporary or in-between
temporary and permanent services. There
is no rhyme or reason not to count the
service of work-charged period in case it
has been rendered before regularisation. In
our
opinion,
an
impermissible
classification has been made under Rule
3(8).
It
would
be
highly
unjust,
impermissible and irrational to deprive
such employees benefit of the qualifying
service. Service of work-charged period
remains the same for all the employees,
once it is to be counted for one class, it has
to
be
counted
for
all
to
prevent
discrimination. The classification cannot be
done on the irrational basis and when
respondents
are
themselves
counting
period spent in such service, it would be
highly discriminatory not to count the
service on the basis of flimsy classification.
The rider put on that work-charged service
should
have
preceded
by
temporary
capacity is discriminatory and irrational
and creates an impermissible classification.

34. As it would be unjust, illegal
and impermissible to make aforesaid
classification to make Rule 3(8) valid and
non-discriminatory, we have to read down
the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that
services
rendered
even
prior
to
regularisation in the capacity of workcharged employees, contingency paid fund
employees
or
non-pensionable
establishment
shall
also
be
counted
towards the qualifying service even if such
service is not preceded by temporary or
regular appointment in a pensionable
establishment.

35. In view of the Note appended
to Rule 3(8), which we have read down, the
provision contained in Regulation 370 of
the Civil Services Regulations has to be
struck down as also the instructions
contained in Para 669 of the Financial
Handbook.

36. There are some of the
employees who have not been regularised
in spite of having rendered the services for
30-40 or more years whereas they have
been superannuated. As they have worked
in the work-charged establishment, not
against
any
particular
project,
their
services ought to have been regularised
under the Government instructions and
even as per the decision of this Court in
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1
: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . This Court in the
said decision has laid down that in case
services have been rendered for more than
ten years without the cover of the Court's
order, as one-time measure, the services be
regularised of such employees. In the facts
of the case, those employees who have
worked for ten years or more should have
been regularised. It would not be proper to
regulate
them
for
consideration
of
regularisation
as
others
have
been
regularised, we direct that their services be
treated as a regular one. However, it is
made clear that they shall not be entitled to
claiming any dues of difference in wages
had they been continued in service
regularly before attaining the age of
superannuation. They shall be entitled to
receive the pension as if they have retired
from the regular establishment and the
services rendered by them right from the
day
they
entered
the
work-charged
establishment
shall
be
counted
as
qualifying service for purpose of pension.

37. In view of reading down Rule
3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules,
1961, we hold that services rendered in the
work-charged
establishment
shall
be
treated as qualifying service under the
aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The
1312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arrears of pension shall be confined to
three years only before the date of the
order. Let the admissible benefits be paid
accordingly
within
three
months.
Resultantly, the appeals filed by the
employees are allowed and filed by the
State are dismissed."

9. He further submits that since
similar rules for pensionary benefits exist
in the respondent authority, therefore, the
matter is squarely covered by the said
judgment and petitioner herein should also
be extended the benefit of the law settled in
the case of Prem Singh (Supra).

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent opposes the applicability of the
judgment in the case of Prem Singh (Supra)
on the ground that effect of the aforesaid
judgment stands nullified because of the
enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying
Service for Pension and Validation Act,
2021.

11. So far as Act of 2021 is
concerned, the same is applicable only
upon the employees of State Government.
There is no similar Act which is applicable
with regard to employees of the Centralized
Services of the Development Authority.
Even otherwise Act of 2021 is already read
down by this Court by judgment dated
17.02.2023 passed in Writ-A No.8968 of
2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and others). Relevant paragraphs of
the same reads as:

"19. The very initial appointment
letters show that petitioners were appointed
against substantive posts on adhoc basis.
Since their appointment is against a
substantive post, hence, they are squarely
covered even by Section 2 of the Act of
2021 as it stands. Further, in view of
interpretation as given above to Section 2
of the Act of 2021 and it is held that the
services
performed
in
temporary
or
permanent nature need to be counted for
pensionary purposes, otherwise, it again
would be hit by the judgment of the
Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh
(supra), thus, there can be no dispute that
all the petitioners are are entitled for
counting of services rendered by them as
ad-hoc employees for pensionary purposes.

In
view
of
above,
all
the
impugned orders are set aside."

12. The present Rules of 2011 are
parallel to the Rules of State Government
which have been read down by the
Supreme Court, being held in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as
they create an artificial categorization of
similarly situated employees. In the present
case also an artificial classification is
created as admittedly, as the employees on
adhoc appointments perform the same
duties as the regular employees and are
throughout treated as the regular employee.
Thus, the matter is squarely covered by the
law settled in case of Prem Singh (Supra).

13. Since grievance of the petitioner
in the present petition is similar to one
which has already been adjudicated by this
Court in the aforesaid case, the benefit of
the aforesaid judgment and order dated
17.2.2023 shall also be made available to
the present petitioner in the same terms.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned orders dated
22.11.2022 and 17.1.2023 are set aside.
Respondents are directed to pay regular
pension and other retiral benefits to the
petitioner. However, petitioner shall be
entitled to past pensionary benefits for last
three years only.
4 All. Renu Chaurasiya Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
1313
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1313
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-A No. 5545 of 2022

Renu Chaurasiya ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Praveen Kumar Singh, Avinash Chandra,
Manish Vaish, Prashant Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Taranjeet Singh Makker, Sharad Kumar
Shukla

Service
Law-
Order
inflicting
major
punishment upon the petitioner-as well as
appellate order-challenged- transaction of
funds from her account- much higher than
salary-
misconduct-
Regulations
3(1),
3(3), and Regulation 20(4) read with
Regulation 24 of the Punjab and Sindh
Bank
Officers
Employees
(Conduct)
Regulations,
1981-charge
against
the
petitioner is not specific and vague in
nature- no violation of Regulation 20(4)-
appellate order does not deal with the
submissions
of
the
petitioner-order
passed in cavalier manner- impugned
order held to be unsustainable- petition
allowed. (Paras 20 to 23)
HELD:
On the analysis of the proceedings, initiated and
culminated, against the petitioner leading to the
passing of the impugned orders of punishment,
the same do not in any way demonstrate any
violation of Regulation 20(4) or for that matter
violation of Regulation 3(1) and Regulation 3(3)
or Regulation 24 of the Employees Regulations.
The proceedings are further bad in law in as
much as nowhere did the petitioner ever admit
the guilt and, thus, it was incumbent upon the
disciplinary authority to record its findings on
each such charge in terms of Regulation 4 of
the Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1981 read
with Regulation 8 of the 1981. For all the
reasons recorded above, the impugned orders
punishing the petitioner with a major penalty,
are clearly unsustainable and are liable to be
quashed. The impugned orders dated 11.2.2022
and 8.8.2022 are quashed. I am not remanding
the matter as the charges levelled against the
petitioner are as vague as they can be and
subjecting the petitioner to give a reply to such
vague charges would be further embarrassing
the petitioner. (Para 22)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Ramesh Mohan Shukla Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported 2015(7) ADJ 722 (DB)

2. Mahesh Narayan Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported in 2011 (5) ADJ 177

3. St. of U.P. & ors.Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772

4.Civil Appeal No. 8071 of 2014 in re: St. of
Karnataka Vs M Gangaraj

5. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs U.O.I.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed
by the petitioner challenging the order
dated
11.2.2022
whereby
a
major
punishment
was
inflicted
upon
the
petitioner as well as the appellate order
dated 8.8.2022 whereby the departmental
appeal preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed.

3. The brief facts that emerge are that
the petitioner was employed as an officer