# Manoj Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 502
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 16556 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52947
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parties. It also flows from more or less
common stand of parties on the principle of
law that for ascertaining the value of the
property which is no longer available for
restitution on account of sale etc., the
Court should adopt a realistic and
verifiable approach instead of resorting to
hypothetical and presumptive value. It is
also one of the established propositions
that in the context of restitution the Court
should keep under consideration not only
the loss suffered by the party entitled to
restitution but also the gain, if any, made
by other party who is obliged to make
restitution. No unmerited injustice should
be caused to any of the parties."

12. Although specific provisions of the
Code Civil Procedure are not applicable in
writ jurisdiction, but the general principles,
particularly that of restitution, would be
applicable in the present case as well.

13. In view of aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
it
being
evident
that
impugned order dated 17.12.2025 is not in
consonance with the directions issued by
this Court on 19.11.2025, the same is
quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari, directing opposite party no.2
i.e. Commissioner Food Safety and Drug
Administration,
Sector-C,
Aliganj,
Lucknow to post petitioner in the place
where he was posted prior to issuance of
suspension order.

14. Resultantly, petition succeeds and
is allowed at the admission stage itself.
Parties to bear their own costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 502
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2025

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

Writ A No. 16556 of 2024

Manoj Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether the delayed issue of the regularization
order would divest the petitioner of the right to
receive pension under the old pension scheme
that was in vogue at the time when his right to
regularization crystallized?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Palika
(Centralised) Services Rules, 1966: Rules
21-A, 31 - The delayed issue of the
regularization order on 11.10.2006 would
not divest the petitioner of the right to
receive pension under the old pension
scheme that was in vogue at the time
when
his
right
to
regularization
crystallized. Apparently, the petitioner had
been appointed on an ad hoc basis way back on
07.03.1995, and that ad hoc appointment had
to be against a vacant post, substantive or
temporary, as the said Rule contemplates.
There was, therefore, no justification for the
respondents
to
have
delayed
issuing
regularization orders after the amendment was
notified on 10.04.2003. Therefore, the State's
inaction or prolixity in issuing the necessary
regularization order would not divest the
petitioner of his right to regularization that
accrued u/Rule 21-A(1) of the Rules of 1966 at
the relevant point of time, when the old pension
scheme was still in force. (Para 14 to 16)

If a different view of the matter is taken
and one were to go simply by the date of
regularization and the prevalent pension
scheme, it would introduce an element of
arbitrariness, in that, that the State could
delay issuing the regularization order, to
which the petitioner was entitled under
the Rules on the date the Rule came into
force until such time that the new pension
scheme was introduced. There is no valid
justification offered by the respondents for all
the delay between 10.04.2003, when Rule 21- A
12 All. Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
503
came into force and 11.10.2006, when the
regularization order was actually issued. The
petitioner must, therefore, be held entitled to
the benefit of the old pension scheme that was
in force prior to 01.04.2005, the date of the
regularization order notwithstanding. (Para 17)

B. The entitlement to pension has to be
limited to the date when the petitioner
was actually regularized or in a case, such
as this, when he was entitled to be
regularized, but wrongfully deprived due
to the respondents' inaction. It cannot be
anything more. The contention
of the
petitioner that he is entitled to pension w.e.f.
07.03.1995, when he was appointed on ad hoc
basis cannot be accepted. (Para 23)

A mandamus is issued, directing the Principal
Secretary, Nagar Vikas, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, the Director, Local Bodies, U.P.,
Lucknow and the Secretary, Agra Development
Authority, Agra, to ensure amongst themselves
payment of pension and gratuity to the
petitioner, reckoning his entitling service w.e.f.
10.04.2003 and pay the pension with effect
from the month following his retirement,
together with arrears, which will carry simple
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
1. State of U.P. and others Vs. Chandra
Mohan Yadav Retired Junior Engineer Civil,
Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine All 5210
(Para 18)
2. State of U.P. and another Vs. Chandra Mohan
Yadav and another, Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s).22890-22893/2025, (Para 19)
3. State of U.P. and others Vs. Raj Bahadur
Pastor, 2022 (3) ADJ 5 (DB) (Para 20)
4. State of U.P. and another Vs. Badri Narayan
Agnihotri
and
others,
2022:AHC:92589-DB,
(Para 21)
5. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs.
Badri Narayan Agnihotri and others, SLP (Civil)
Diary
No(s).
29048/2022,
decided
on
21.11.2022 (Para 22)

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services
Rules, 1966; Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised)
Services
(Twenty-First
Amendment)
Rules,
2003.

List of Keywords
 pension, gratuity, service, arrears, payment,
daily, wage, contract, continuously, ad hoc
basis, regularization.

Appearances for Parties
For
Petitioner(s):
Siddharth
Khare,
Sr.
Advocate
For Respondent(s): Suresh C. Dwivedi, C.S.C.

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

1. This
writ petition
has
been
instituted by the petitioner, Manoj Kumar
Mishra, a retired Assistant Engineer (Civil),
belonging to the U.P. Palika Centralised
Service, seeking our mandamus, ordering
the respondents to sanction and fix his
pension and gratuity, taking into account
his entire length of service from 07.03.1995
to 30.06.2024, that is to say, including the
period during which he worked ad hoc. The
petitioner has further prayed that he be paid
his monthly pension regularly, together
with arrears, and, further, that gratuity be
also determined and paid to him.

2. The petitioner's case is that he was
appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on
daily-wages w.e.f. 29.05.1985 with the
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mainpuri. He has
remained in employment continuously
eversince. In the year 1995, proceedings
were taken by the State Government to
grant appointment as Junior Engineers
(Civil) under Rule 31 of the Uttar Pradesh
Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966
(for short, 'the Rules of 1966') to persons
working on daily-wage/ contract/ ad hoc
basis in the various Nagar Nigam/ Nagar
Palika
Parishad.
In
the
aforesaid
proceedings, the petitioner's name was also
included for consideration. On 07.03.1995,
an
order
was
issued by
the
State
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government, whereby 58 persons were
appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) under
Rule 31 of the Rules of 1966. The
petitioner's name figures at serial No.53 of
the said list. In terms of the order dated
07.03.1995, the petitioner submitted his
joining report to the Director, Local
Bodies, U.P., Lucknow. He was posted at
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mahoba, where he
joined and discharged duties assigned to
him. The petitioner was transferred and
posted to different establishments. His
work and conduct was always found
satisfactory. There was no complaint with
regard to his performance etc. by his
superiors.

3. The petitioner's appointment vide
order dated 07.03.1995 was an ad hoc
appointment under Rule 31 of the Rules
1966. The Rules of 1966 were amended on
10.04.2003 vide the Uttar Pradesh Palika
(Centralised)
Services
(Twenty-First
Amendment) Rules, 2003, which introduced
Rule 21-A into the said Rules. It provided for
regularization of ad hoc employees, which
applies to the petitioner's case. The petitioner
asserts that under Rule 21-A of the Rules of
1966, as amended by the 21st Amendment,
his services should have been regularized in
the year 2003 itself, but on account of the
respondents' lethargy, there was a time lag in
issuing the necessary regularization orders. A
regularization order, relating to the petitioner
along with some other employees, was made
on 11.10.2006 by the Director, Local Bodies,
U.P., Lucknow.

4. At the time when the regularization
order was made, the petitioner was posted with
the Nagar Nigam, Agra. He continued with
that Nagar Nigam until the year 2016, when he
was transferred to the Nagar Palika Parishad,
Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad. In the year
2017, the petitioner was moved to the Agra
Development Authority, Agra. While working
with the Development Authority aforesaid, he
was promoted as an Assistant Engineer (Civil)
in the year 2023. He retired from service on
30.06.2024 upon attaining the age of
superannuation. The petitioner says that
regular deductions from his salary were made
towards his GPF from the month of March,
1995 until his retirement. During his service,
he was sanctioned several benefits worked out
on the basis of his length of service, reckoned
w.e.f. 07.03.1995.

5. On 23.05.2017, an office order was
issued by the Director, Local Bodies, whereby
benefits
of
financial
upgradation
were
sanctioned to persons, whose names appear in
the said order. The petitioner's name finds
place at serial No.41 of the last mentioned
order. A perusal of the order indicates, as the
petitioner says, that on completion of 10 years'
satisfactory service, he was sanctioned his first
financial upgradation w.e.f. 01.12.2008, and,
upon completion of 16 years of service, a
second
financial
upgradation
w.e.f.
09.03.2011. It is also said that the benefit of
the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme
was sanctioned for the petitioner, computing
his service from the month of March, 1995.
The case of the petitioner is that upon
retirement, he was paid his provident fund and
dues on account of leave encashment.
However, he was neither paid gratuity nor
sanctioned
or
disbursed
his
pension.
Apparently, as the petitioner acknowledges, he
has been denied his pension and gratuity on
ground that his services were regularized on
11.10.2006, and that being a date subsequent
to 01.04.2005, the new pension scheme had
come into force, which was a contributory
pension scheme and the old pension scheme
had been abolished.

6. It is pleaded on behalf of the
petitioner that he was appointed on
12 All. Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
505
07.03.1995 in accordance with Rule 31 of
the Rules of 1966. This appointment,
though called ad hoc, is indeed one made in
accordance with Rules and is not ad hoc in
the sense in which the term is understood.
Since
the
petitioner
has
functioned
continuously from 07.03.1995, after being
appointed under Rule 31 of the Rules of
1966, followed by regularization in service
on 11.10.2006, the entire period has to be
reckoned as regular service, entitling him to
pension under the pre-existing or old
pension scheme.

7. It is also asserted that the
entitlement
of
the
petitioner
to
regularization would crystallize under the
Amendment of 2003 to the Rules of 1966
in the month of April, 2003. The delay in
issue of the regularization order is a lapse
on the respondents' part, for which the
petitioner cannot be denied his right, that
would otherwise accrue. It is also pleaded
that the regularization order, albeit issued
on 11.10.2006, would relate back to the
date of the petitioner's entitlement to
regularization. The petitioner represented
his cause to the Director, Local Bodies in
June, 2021, but the representation did not
elicit response. No action was taken.

8. It is the denial of the petitioner's
pension and gratuity, which has brought
him to this Court.

9. A notice of motion was issued on
25.10.2024. A counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the Agra Development Authority on
14.11.2024. Two separate counter affidavits
were filed, one on behalf of the State, and the
other, the Director, Local Bodies, on
09.12.2024 in Court. These were taken on
record. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditendra Singh,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, waived his
right to file a rejoinder.

10.
Parties
having
exchanged
affidavits, the writ petition was admitted to
hearing, which proceeded forthwith. It was
re-heard on 02.06.2025, connecting it to
Writ-A No.17940 of 2024. We do not think
that connection of the two writ petitions
was required, because a different set of
rules apply to the petitioners in the two writ
petitions, notwithstanding the similarity of
cause of action and relief. This petition was
heard further on 18.07.2025, 04.08.2025,
19.08.2025
and
25.08.2025,
when
judgment was reserved.

11. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Mr.
Kauntey Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi,
learned Standing Counsel on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. S. C.
Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf
of
the
Agra
Development
Authority and Mr. Kunal Shah, learned
Amicus Curiae.

12. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, we find that the petitioner was
appointed as a daily-wager way back on
29.05.1985. Some orders were made by the
State Government under Rule 31 of the Rules
of 1966 to appoint daily-wagers, who had
worked for three years or more, prior to
01.10.1994,
and
were
in
service
on
07.03.1995 on ad hoc basis. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner was found fit and
eligible to be appointed on ad hoc basis under
Rule 31 of the Rules of 1966 as a Junior
Engineer. Now, this was not an appointment
de hors the rules, but had some regularity
about it. Rule 31 of the Rules of 1966
reads:
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"31. Ad hoc and temporary
officiating appointments.- Notwithstanding
anything contained in Rule 21, the State
Government may also make ad hoc
appointments or temporary officiating
arrangements for the posts falling vacant
substantively or temporarily"

13. Rule 21-A was introduced in the
Rules of 1966 vide notification dated
10.04.2003. It reads:

"21-A. Regularisation of ad hoc
appointments.- (1) Any person who-

(i) was directly appointed on ad
hoc basis before June 30, 1998 and is
continuing in service as such on date of
commencement of these rules;

(ii)
possessed
requisite
qualifications prescribed under Rule 12 for
regular appointment at the time of such ad
hoc appointment; and

(iii) has completed or as the case
may be, after he has completed three years
continuous service, shall be considered for
appointment in permanent or temporary
vacancy as may be available on the basis of
his service record and suitability before
any regular appointment is made in such
vacancy in accordance with the provisions
contained in these rules.'"

(2)
In
making
regular
appointment under these rules reservation
for the candidates belonging to the
Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes,
Backward Classes and other categories
shall be made in accordance with the
orders of the Government in force at the
time of recruitment.

(3) For the purpose of sub-rule
(1)
Government
shall
constitute
a,
Selection Committee and consultation with
the Commission shall not be necessary.

(4) The Director of local bodies
shall prepare an eligibility list of the
candidates, arranged in order of seniority
as determined from the date of order of
their ad hoc appointment and if two or
more persons are appointed together, from
the order in which their names are
arranged in the said appointment order.
The list shall be placed before the Selection
Committee along with their character rolls
and such other service records pertaining
to them as may be considered necessary to
judge their suitability.

(5) The Selection Committee shall
consider the case of the candidates on the
basis of their records referred to in subrule (4).

(6) The Selection Committee shall
prepare a list of selected candidates, the
names in the list being arranged in order of
seniority and forward it to the Government
and the Director of Local Bodies.

(7) The Government or Director
of Local Bodies shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-rule (2) of this rule and
sub-rule (1) of Rule 6, make appointment
from the list prepared under sub-rule (6) of
these rules in order in which their names
stand in the list.

(8) Appointments made under
sub-rule (7) shall be deemed to be made
under relevant provision contained in Rule
21.

(9) A person appointed under this
rule shall be entitled to seniority only from
the date of order of appointment after
selection in accordance with this rule and
shall, in the cases, be placed below the
persons appointed in accordance with the
procedure for direct recruitment contained
in Part V of these rules prior to the
appointment of such person under this rule.

(10) If two or more persons are
appointed together under this rule, their
seniority inter se shall be determined in the
order
mentioned
in
the
order
of
appointment.
12 All. Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
507

(11) The services of a person,
appointed on ad hoc basis who is not found
suitable or whose case is not covered by
sub-rule (1) of this rule, shall be terminated
forthwith and on such termination, he shall
be entitled to receive one month's pay."

14. The petitioner was regularized
under Rule 21-A of the Rules 1966,
because he had been working for the
requisite number of years, as contemplated
under the relevant Government Order,
galvanizing the process of regularization
under Rule 21-A. He was found to have the
necessary qualifications under the Rules
and
the
regularization
certainly
contemplated the existence of a vacancy. It
would also be noticed that when the
petitioner
was
given
an
ad
hoc
appointment, that too was against a post,
that was substantively or temporarily
vacant. Rule 21-A also required that ad hoc
appointees be considered for regularization
before any regular appointment was made
under the Rules of 1966.

15. It is asserted in paragraph No.25 of
the writ petition that the petitioner was
entitled to regularization in February, 2003,
that is to say, the date when Rule 21-A was
introduced in the Rules of 1966, and,
further, that the mere fact that there existed
a default on the respondents' part in passing
timely orders, cannot affect the petitioner's
legal
entitlement,
which
means
his
entitlement to pension etc. The said
paragraph is not specifically denied in the
counter affidavit about the factum of delay
in taking action for the petitioner's
regularization. All that is said is that the
petitioner was appointed on a regular basis
to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)
against a vacant post by means of the
Directorate's letter dated 11.10.2006. There
is no justification offered as to why the
delay occurred. There is no assertion of the
fact that there was no vacant post, against
which the petitioner could be regularized,
when Rule 21-A was introduced.

16. Apparently, the petitioner had been
appointed on an ad hoc basis way back on
07.03.1995, and that ad hoc appointment
had to be against a vacant post, substantive
or
temporary,
as
the
said
Rule
contemplates. There was, therefore, no
justification for the respondents to have
delayed issuing regularization orders after
the amendment was notified on 10.04.2003.
Therefore, the State's inaction or prolixity
in issuing the necessary regularization
order would not divest the petitioner of his
right to regularization that accrued under
Rule 21-A(1) of the Rules of 1966 at the
relevant point of time, when the old
pension scheme was still in force. The
delayed issue of the regularization order on
11.10.2006 would not divest the petitioner
of the right to receive pension under the old
pension scheme, that was in vogue at the
time when his right to regularization
crystallized.

17. If a different view of the matter is
taken and one were to go simply by the
date of regularization and the prevalent
pension scheme, it would introduce an
element of arbitrariness, in that, that the
State could delay issuing the regularization
order, to which the petitioner was entitled
under the Rules on the date the Rule came
into force until such time that the new
pension scheme was introduced. There is
no valid justification offered by the
respondents for all the delay between
10.04.2003, when Rule 21-A came into
force
and
11.10.2006,
when
the
regularization order was actually issued.
The petitioner must, therefore, be held
entitled to the benefit of the old pension
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
scheme, that was in force prior to
01.04.2005, the date of the regularization
order notwithstanding.

18. This issue was answered, the way
we have understood it, in State of U.P. and
others v. Chandra Mohan Yadav Retired
Junior Engineer Civil, Nagar Nigam,
2025 SCC OnLine All 5210, where it has
been held:

"16. There is, however, another
aspect which may not be lost sight of. All
the writ petitioners were appointed initially
on temporary basis in late 1980s and they
were offered ad hoc appointments with
effect from 7.3.1995. They possessed
requisite qualification for appointment to
the post. By virtue of Rule 21-A(1), their
services were liable to be considered for
regularisation soon after the introduction
of Rule 21- A(1) in the Rules, 1966.
Merely because the State did not consider
their services for regularisation for
sufficiently long would not be a valid
ground to allow the State to contend now
that since their entry into service is after
1.4.2005, therefore, they would not be
entitled to the benefit under the Old
Pension Scheme."

19. The aforesaid decision of the
Division Bench was assailed before the
Supreme Court by means of Special Leave
to Appeal (C) No(s).22890-22893/2025,
State of U.P. and another v. Chandra
Mohan Yadav and another, where the
Supreme Court vide order dated 22.08.2025
declined to grant leave and dismissed the
petition for grant of special leave.

20. The issue is also covered by
another Bench decision of this Court in
State of U.P. and others v. Raj Bahadur
Pastor, 2022 (3) ADJ 5 (DB).

21. Likewise, in State of U.P. and
another v. Badri Narayan Agnihotri and
others, 2022:AHC:92589-DB, it was held
in the context of the same Rule 21-A of the
Rules of 1966, which is subject matter of
consideration in the present matter, thus:

"A perusal of the aforesaid
provisions of the Service Rules governing
the field, it is borne out that an ad-hoc
appointment is not to be treated as
substantive appointment and an ad-hoc
appointee becomes a Member of the
Service only on the appointment to a post
in the cadre of the Centralized Services
under the Rules. The writ petitioner /
respondent admittedly was appointed as
Revenue Inspector on ad-hoc basis on
25.8.1989 and was regularized by order
dated 5.2.2008 and thus became a Member
of
the
Service
of
the
Municipal
Corporation, Kanpur on regularization of
his services i.e. on 5.2.2008. The New
Pension Scheme has been introduced w.e.f.
1.4.2005 and in such view of the matter, the
learned counsel for the appellants appears
to be justified in submitting that the writ
petitioner / respondent is entitled for Old
Pension Scheme and not the New Pension
Scheme.

However, we find that the writ
petitioner
/
respondent
was
directly
appointed on ad-hoc basis on 25.8.1989 i.e.
on a date anterior to June 30, 1998
mentioned under Rule 21-A (i) and has
been continuing in service as such on the
date of commencement of the Rules, 2003
and possessed the requisite qualifications
prescribed under Rule 12 for regular
appointment and has also completed three
years continuous service was liable to be
considered for appointment in permanent
or temporary vacancy and as such,
absorbed as "Member of the Service" since
July, 2001 and in such view of the matter,
12 All. Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
509
he would stand entitled to the Old Pension
Scheme.
The
State
Government
has
proceeded to regularize the services of the
writ petitioner / respondent only in the year
2008 even though he stood entitled to the
same in the year 2001 itself. In our opinion,
the writ petitioner / respondent could not
be deprived of his absorption as a member
of the services merely on account of the
lackadaisical attitude of the Government."

22. The aforesaid judgment of the
Division Bench, upholding the Single
Judge, when put in issue before the
Supreme Court by the State vide Special
Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).
29048/2022, The State of Uttar Pradesh
and another v. Badri Narayan Agnihotri
and others, decided on 21.11.2022, was
affirmed and the SLP dismissed. The
following remarks of the Supreme Court in
Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) are
illuminating:

"Respondent
No.1-
employee
joined service on ad-hoc basis as Revenue
Inspector
in
Municipal
Corporation,
Kanpur on 25.08.1989. Rule 21-A of The
Uttar
Pradesh
Palika
(Centralized)
Services (Twenty First Amendment) Rules,
2003 indicates that such of the ad-hoc
employees who have completed 3 years of
continuous service, a right is conferred
upon
them
to
be
considered
for
appointment, in permanent or temporary
vacancy as may be available on the basis of
his services record and suitability before
any regular appointment is made in
accordance with the provisions contained
in these Rules.

The learned counsel for the
respondent contends that as he was
appointed on ad-hoc basis as Revenue
Officer on 25.08.1989 and on completing 3
years of services in the month of August
1992, he became eligible to be considered
for appointment in permanent/temporary
vacancy as available and his suitability
was to be considered on the basis of his
service record.

Much before the new Pension
Scheme came into force with effect from
01.04.2005, the rights were confirmed in
favour of the employee seeking regular
employment in terms of Rule 21-A (iii). It
was never the case of the petitioner that
there was no vacancy, permanent or
temporary, available against which his
candidature would have been considered
for regular appointment prior to his order
of regular appointment passed by the
authorities on 05.02.2008."

23. The contention of the petitioner
that he is entitled to pension w.e.f.
07.03.1995, when he was appointed on ad
hoc basis, however, cannot be accepted.
The entitlement to pension has to be limited
to the date when the petitioner was actually
regularized or in a case, such as this, when
he was entitled to be regularized, but
wrongfully deprived due to the respondents'
inaction. It cannot be anything more.

24. In the result, this petition succeeds
and is allowed. A mandamus is issued,
directing the Principal Secretary, Nagar
Vikas, Government of U.P., Lucknow, the
Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow and
the
Secretary,
Agra
Development
Authority,
Agra,
to
ensure
amongst
themselves
payment
of
pension
and
gratuity to the petitioner, reckoning his
entitling service w.e.f. 10.04.2003 and pay
the pension with effect from the month
following his retirement, together with
arrears, which will carry simple interest at
the rate of 6% per annum. The arrears shall
be paid within a period of two months from
the date of communication of this order.
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The current pension shall be paid regularly
month-by-month forthwith. Likewise, due
gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner, also
within a period of two months from the
date of communication of this order.

25. There shall be no order as to costs.

26. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Principal Secretary,
Nagar
Vikas,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow, the Director, Local Bodies, U.P.,
Lucknow
and
the
Secretary,
Agra
Development Authority, Agra by the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 510
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH , J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ B No. 757 of 2024

Kaushal Kishore & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief
Revenue Officer, Gonda & Ors.
 ...Respondent

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) What is the true scope of powers vested with
the Deputy Director of Consolidation in terms of
Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953, i.e., whether it is corrective
in nature or adjudicatory;
(ii) Whether the power of reference can be
exercised
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation after a notification is issued under
Section 52(1) of the Act;
(iii) Whether reference proceedings can be
said to be saved in terms of Section 52(2) of
the Act.
HEADNOTE
Reference under Section 48(3) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Nature
and scope - Whether reference power is
inherent or adjudicatory - Exercise of reference
power after de-notification under Section 52(1)
- Saving of reference proceedings under Section
52(2) - Effect of closure of consolidation
operations
-
Jurisdiction
of
consolidation
authorities post de-notification
HELD:
Issue (i): Nature and scope of "Reference"
under Section 48(3).
Disputes between parties which fall in the
categories mentioned in Sections 9-A, 9-B and
9-C, Sections 12 and 21 of the Act have a clear
trajectory, i.e., they are filed before the
Consolidation Officer and decided after affording
an opportunity to lead evidence and hearing by
the
Consolidation
Officer;
the
order
is
appealable before the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation and if still dissatisfied, the
aggrieved party can further invoke the provision
of revision before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in terms of Section 48(1) of the
Act. The orders passed under the aforesaid
sections cannot be ordinarily varied, modified or
changed by taking recourse to a reference.
However, there may still be disputes which may
not clearly be within the parameters of Sections
9-A, 9-B or 9-C or Sections 12 and 21 of the Act,
but they may arise while attempting to give
effect to the Scheme of Consolidation, on
account of any error in preparation of records or
anomalies, difficulties and disputes which may
occur on the ground level while implementing
the Scheme on the spot, which come to the
notice
of
the
Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who, being
the first responders in terms of the Act, take
note, hear the parties and, where some genuine
grievance occurs or surfaces, are required to
refer the same to the highest authority, i.e., the
Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The Court held that the power of reference may
arise out of the corrective and executory
jurisdiction but it partakes the nature of
adjudication, and since the power of reference
is somewhat different than the power of