# Mool Chandra Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 644
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4120 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mool-chandra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53742
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the period of service rendered by the
petitioner in the work charge establishment, can
be added alongwith qualifying service to
enhance the pension?

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Pension - Qualifying
period of service - Service rendered in
work charge establishment claimed to be
counted - Petitioner was regularized in
2014, on the basis of which he already
attained the qualifying period and is
receiving service - However, he claimed
that if the previous period is also counted
for qualifying service then the net result
would be that petitioner's regularization
would take effect from back date i.e. from
the date he entered in the work charge
establishment
in
the
year
1997
-
Permissibility:
Held : Principles of law laid down in Prem
Singh's case would not be attracted in the
present case as petitioner has already attained
the qualifying period for pension and is receiving
pension
-
A
person
gets
substantive
appointment on the date he is regularized in
service and hence, regularization cannot be
given effect from the back date unless and until
the regularization rules do provides for the same
or the regularization order provide for the same.
It is not the case of the petitioner that he has
been regularized w.e.f. the year 1997 and
hence, I do not find any force in the petition.
[Para 7] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
(2019) 10 SCC 516; Udai Pratap and others v.
State of Bihar and others 2023 0 Supreme (SC)
429 - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - Rule 3(8).

List of Keywords
Pension;
Qualifying
service;
Work
charge
establishment;
Computation
of
service;
Regularization;
Substantive
capacity;
Substantive appointment.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
05.09.2017
whereby
the
respondent refused to computes the period of
service
rendered
in
the
work
charge
establishment.

## Text

644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
since, the consideration therein was in the
light of statutory rules for absorption and
the scope of those rules. The claim that he
need not be a graduate for absorption and
being a service candidate, on completing
service of 10 years he is exempt from the
requirement of possessing a degree need
mention, only to be rejected. The stand of
the
respondent
department
that
the
absorption of a deputationist being one
against the direct quota, the possession of
basic educational qualification prescribed
for direct recruitment i.e., a degree is a
must and essential and that there could no
comparison of the claim of such a person
with one to be dealt with on promotion of a
candidate who is already in service in that
department is well merited and deserves to
be sustained and we see no infirmity
whatsoever in the said claim."

12. In view of above, considering the
nature of order of deputation, this Court is
of the opinion that petitioner can be
repatriated
before
maximum
period
prescribed
in
order
to
his
parent
department. There is no bar that borrowing
department cannot pass an order of
repatriation.

13. It is also not in dispute that U.P.
Project Corporation Limited is a separate
entity and its orders are not passed on
behalf of Governor and since impugned
order is passed by Prabandh Nideshak of
said Corporation, who is the appropriate
authority, therefore, there is no ground to
challenge the impugned order that it was
passed
by
an
Officer
beyond
its
jurisdiction.

14. Impugned order is not an stigmatic
order. There may be some reasons that
working of petitioner was not found
suitable by respondents but it does not
reflect from impugned order. Even no
inquiry was initiated by Corporation except
few notices were issued. Therefore, there is
no legal basis to challenge the impugned
order on a ground, it being a stigmatic
order.

15. It may be a case that RespondentU.P. Project Corporation Limited is still
require Officers from parent department of
petitioner, on deputation but petitioner has
no indefeasible right to consider for
deputation. Therefore, the Court is of the
opinion that all argument raised on behalf
of petitioner are not legally sustainable and
in view of Kunal Nanda (supra), Ratilal
B. Soni (supra) and S.N. Maity (supra),
the petitioner can be repatriated to his
parent department at any time and even
before prescribed period came to an end.

16. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.

17. In the interest of justice, it would
be necessary to observe that only on ground
that petitioner is repatriated before expiry
of maximum period, he would not be
disentitled for consideration of fresh
deputation, if circumstances so warrant.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 644
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 4120 of 2018

Mool Chandra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
8 All. Mool Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
645
Brijesh Kumar Singh, Hemant Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the period of service rendered by the
petitioner in the work charge establishment, can
be added alongwith qualifying service to
enhance the pension?

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Pension - Qualifying
period of service - Service rendered in
work charge establishment claimed to be
counted - Petitioner was regularized in
2014, on the basis of which he already
attained the qualifying period and is
receiving service - However, he claimed
that if the previous period is also counted
for qualifying service then the net result
would be that petitioner's regularization
would take effect from back date i.e. from
the date he entered in the work charge
establishment
in
the
year
1997
-
Permissibility:
Held : Principles of law laid down in Prem
Singh's case would not be attracted in the
present case as petitioner has already attained
the qualifying period for pension and is receiving
pension
-
A
person
gets
substantive
appointment on the date he is regularized in
service and hence, regularization cannot be
given effect from the back date unless and until
the regularization rules do provides for the same
or the regularization order provide for the same.
It is not the case of the petitioner that he has
been regularized w.e.f. the year 1997 and
hence, I do not find any force in the petition.
[Para 7] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
(2019) 10 SCC 516; Udai Pratap and others v.
State of Bihar and others 2023 0 Supreme (SC)
429 - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - Rule 3(8).

List of Keywords
Pension;
Qualifying
service;
Work
charge
establishment;
Computation
of
service;
Regularization;
Substantive
capacity;
Substantive appointment.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
05.09.2017
whereby
the
respondent refused to computes the period of
service
rendered
in
the
work
charge
establishment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul
Malviya, learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution
petitioner has assailed the order dated
05.09.2017 passed by the respondent No. 4
to the extent it computes the period running
from 2004 till he attained the age of
superannuation in the year 2017 and
thereby ignoring the period of service
rendered by the petitioner prior to 2004 in
the work charge establishment.

3. It is contended by learned counsel
for the petitioner that in the light of the
judgment in the case of Prem Singh v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2019)
10 SCC 516 the period rendered in the
work charge establishment is required to be
counted towards qualifying service and for
pension and hence, the period rendered by
the
petitioner
in
the
work
charge
establishment ought to have been taken into
consideration.

4. On the contrary it is argued by
learned Standing Counsel that petitioner
retired in the year 2017 and hence he
qualified for pension for having attained
the qualified period for pension which is
ten years as his service came to be counted
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from the year 2004 untill he retired in the
year 2017.

5. It is next contended by the learned
Standing Counsel that the principle of law
laid down in the case of Prem Singh
(supra) would be attracted in the event an
employee while discharged his duties in
work charge establishment and retired after
his regularization without getting the benefit
of pension scheme for the reason that during
interregnum period he discharged his duties
in the work charge establishment that could
not be taken into consideration for relevant
Civil Service Regulation. He submits that the
Prem Singh's (supra) judgment has further
been clarified by the Supreme Court itself in
a later authority of Udai Pratap and others
v. State of Bihar and others 2023 0
Supreme (SC)429 in which the Court has
held that the principle of law laid down in the
case of Prem Singh (supra) would be
attracted only to the extent of taking service
rendered in the work charge establishment to
meet the requirement of qualifying period for
pension.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
respective parties and having perused the
records, I fund no quarrel between the
parties as to the claim of old pension
benefit to the petitioner but the limited
question that arise for consideration is
whether the period of service rendered by
the
petitioner
in
the
work
charge
establishment is required to be counted
further towards qualifying service to
inhouse pension. The judgment in the case
of
Udai
Pratap
(supra),
therefore,
becomes relevant here. The relevant
paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the judgment is
reproduced hereunder:

"6.2 Insofar as the submission on
behalf of the appellants that their entire
services rendered as work charged should
be considered and/ or counted for the
purpose of pension/ quantum of pension is
concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If
the same is accepted, in that case, it would
tantamount to regularizing their services
from the initial appointment as work
charged. As per the catena of decisions of
this Court, there is always a difference of
distinction between a regular employee
appointed on a substantive post and a work
charged employee working under work
charged establishment. the work charged
employees
are
not
appointed
on
a
substantive post. They are not appointed
after due process of selection and as per the
recruitment rules. Therefore, the services
rendered as work charged cannot be
counted for the purpose of pension/
quantum of pension. However, at the same
time, after rendering of service as work
charged for number of years and thereafter
when their services have been regularized,
they cannot be denied the pension on the
ground that they have not completed the
qualifying service for pension. That is why,
the service rendered as work charged is to
be counted and/ or considered for the
purpose of qualifying service for pension,
which is provided under Rule 5(v) of the
Rules, 2013.

6.3 Now, insofar as the reliance
placed upon the decision of this Court in
the case of Prem Singh (supra) by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants is concerned, the reliance placed
upon the said decision is absolutely
misplaced. In the said case, this Court was
considering the validity of Rule 3(8) of the
U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, under
which the entire service rendered as work
charged was not to be counted for
qualifying service for pension. To that,
this Court has observed and held that
8 All. Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
647
after rendering service as work charged
for number of years in the Government
establishment/
department,
denying
them the pension on the ground that they
have not completed the qualifying
service for pension would be unjust,
arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, this
Court has observed and held that their
services rendered as work charged shall
be considered/ counted for qualifying
service. This Court has not observed and
held that the entire service rendered as
work charged shall be considered/
counted for the quantum of pension/
pension. The decision of this Court in the
case of Prem Singh (supra), therefore,
would be restricted to the counting of
service rendered as work charged for
qualifying service for pension".

(Emphasis added)

6. From the observations made qua the
directions issued by the Supreme Court in
Prem Singh's Judgment, it is clear that the
principles of law laid down in Prem
Singh's case would not be attracted in the
present case as petitioner has already
attained the qualifying period for pension
and is receiving pension. Petitioner since
claims to be regularized in substantive
capacity in the year 2004 under the rules of
regularization and if the previous period is
also counted for qualifying service then the
net result would be that petitioner's
regularization would take effect from back
date i.e. from the date he entered in the
work charge establishment in the year
1997. The legal position is very clear, a
person gets substantive appointment on the
date he is regularized in service and hence,
regularization cannot be given effect from
the back date unless and until the
regularization rules do provides for the
same or the regularization order provide for
the same. It is not the case of the petitioner
that he has been regularized w.e.f. the year
1997 and hence, I do not find any force in
the petition.

8. In view of the above, the petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 647
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 5314 of 2002
&
Writ A No. 2007437 of 1992

Rajendra Kumar Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Alka Verma, Shivam Tiwari, Tanay Hazari,
Vijay Kumar Azad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Prashant Singh Atal

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the punishment order removing the
petitioner from service is vitiated for nonissuance of show cause notice and denial of
opportunity of hearing as mandated under Rule
55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and Article 311 of the
Constitution of India.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 - Article
311(2) of Constitution of India - Supply of
inquiry report and mandatory show cause
notice - Two-stage disciplinary process -
Non-issuance
vitiates
punishment
-
Removal order quashed.