# Ram Laut Yadav & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 131
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-22
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5764 of 2015
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-laut-yadav-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54394
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

4 All. Ram Laut Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
131

17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

8. In order to consider above submissions including a submission that Trial Court has returned
a perverse finding and has not appreciated the evidence on record, Court also takes note of
judgment passed by First Appellate Court which has considered the order passed in suit whereby it
was decreed and has rejected all grounds, as such, it was a judgment where there was no necessity
to frame points for determination since it were not involved.

9. In above background Court also takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Malluru Mallappa (D) Thru. Lrs. vs. Kuruvathappa and others, 2020 INSC 173 that if First
Appellate Court has display conscious application of mind and record findings supported by
reasons on all issues and contentions, the object of Section 96 CPC got satisfied.

10. So far as second purported ground/ question of law is concerned that the suit was decided
by Trial Court vide order dated 18.08.1973, that concerned issue in suit was under valued and
Court fee paid was insufficient, however, later on plaintiffs have amended suit and thereby
corrected valuation and also made good deficiency, therefore, it was held that suit was not under
valued. No such issue was pressed in first appeal. Memo of First Appeal is not on record.
Otherwise also, it cannot be considered as a substantial question of law.

11. The Court also takes note of a very recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case
of Rusi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Bhavna Seth and others, 2026 INSC 339 that it is settled
law that findings of fact howsoever erroneous cannot be reopened and disturbed in second appeal
which is required to be adjudicated only upon a substantial question of law, if any, arisen therein.
Therefore, once this Court has found that no substantial question of law or even a question of law
worth consideration in present second appeal, there is no occasion for this Court to re-appreciate
the evidence so as to come to a different conclusion.

12. In aforesaid circumstances, this second appeal is dismissed, since it does not involve
substantial question of law purportedly framed when present second appeal was admitted. Interim
order, if any, is vacated.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 131
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 5764 of 2015

Ram Laut Yadav & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether non-teaching employees of an affiliated college of a State University are entitled to the
benefit of leave encashment admissible to similarly placed Government servants.
HEADNOTE
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, s.50 - First Statutes, Cl.36.01 - Fundamental Rules - r.81(b) -
Leave encashment - Petitioners initially appointed as Routine Grade Clerks and subsequently
promoted to the posts of Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant - Petitioners retired from service
and were granted all post-retiral benefits except amount payable towards leave encashment -
Clause 36.01 of the First Statutes provided that leave rules applicable to Government servants
from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to employees of like status - Respondents denied
the benefit on the ground that no specific approval of the State Government existed for
extending leave encashment to non-teaching employees - Justification:

Held: Clause 36.01 of the First Statutes provides that leave rules applicable to Government servants from
time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to employees of like status - Rule 81(b) of the Fundamental Rules,
which provides that leave shall be admissible to Government servants and if such Government servant
surrenders such leave he shall be entitled to encashment of leave - the phrase "mutatis mutandis" implies
that a provision contained in other part of the statute or other statutes would have application as it is with
certain changes in points of detail - Applicability of leave rules upon non-teaching staff of the University
concerned would, therefore, be such as are meant for Government servants from time to time of like status -
In absence of any provision excluding applicability of leave rules or provisions of leave encashment admissible
to similar employees of the State Government, respondents would not be justified in denying the benefit of
leave encashment to the petitioners.
Court further held that specific approval of the State Government is not required for grant of leave benefits as
the Statutes themselves specifically apply leave rules to non-teaching employees mutatis mutandis -
Petitioners held to be entitled to all benefits otherwise admissible to similarly placed Government employees
regarding grant of leave - Fundamental Rule 81(b), which provides that a Government servant surrendering
earned leave shall be entitled to encashment thereof, held to be applicable - Law is settled that in the
hierarchy of laws, a provision contained in the Statute stands on a higher pedestal and in the event of conflict
with a Government Order, the provision of the Statute would prevail - Respondents were not justified in
denying petitioners the benefit of leave encashment - Writ petition allowed - Writ of mandamus issued
directing respondents to extend benefit of leave rules including benefit of leave encashment in accordance
with Rule 81(b) of the Fundamental Rules as available to similarly placed Government employees and to
disburse consequential benefits within the stipulated period. (E-5)
[Paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]
CASE LAW CITED
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another v. Diamond & Gem
Development Corporation Limited and another, (2013) 5 SCC 470.

List of Acts
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973;
Fundamental Rules.
List of Keywords
4 All. Ram Laut Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
133
Leave encashment; Non-teaching staff; Affiliated college; State University; Clause 36.01; Mutatis mutandis;
Fundamental Rule 81(b); Conditions of service; Retiral benefits; Government servant; Executive Council;
Finance Committee; State Government approval; Hierarchy of laws; Statutory entitlement.
CASE ARISING FROM
For grant of leave encashment to retired non-teaching staff of colleges affiliated to the State University
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner: Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Mrs. Seema Srivastava, Pankaj Verma
Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C., Savitra Vardhan Singh
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

CMA No.95359 of 2018 - Application for substitution

1. Heard learned counsel for the the parties.

2. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that wife
of the petitioner is legal heir, who has to be substituted on the place of petitioner No.2.

3. In view of reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the
application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to carry out necessary incorporation in the
array of parties during course of the day.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional CSC for the respondent -
State.

2. In the year 1978 the petitioners were initially appointed on the posts of Routine Grade Clerk
in the office of the Registrar of the respondent No.3 w.e.f. 29.05.1978 and 24.07.1978 respectively
and their services were confirmed w.e.f. 01.05.1981. On 01.08.1988 petitioner No.1 was granted
promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and petitioner No.2 was granted promotion to the post of
Junior Assistant w.e.f. 1.1.1990 and they were further granted promotion to the posts of Senior
Assistant w.e.f. 25.6.1998 and 17.3.1990 respectively and on the post of Senior Assistant they were
confirmed w.e.f. 25.6.1999 and 31.12.1992 respectively.

3. On 30.09.2012 petitioner No.1 retired from service while working on the posts of Senior
Assistant and petitioner No.2 was retired as such w.e.f. 30.6.2011 and after their retirement the
petitioners were granted all the post retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, group insurance and
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount of G.P.F. except the amount payable to the petitioners in lieu of the benefit of leave
encashment.

4. On 19.02.1974 respondent No.5 issued circular that service rules as applicable to the
government employees shall be implemented till framing of service rules for the employees of the
respondent No.3. However, no service rule has been framed for regulating the services of non
teaching staff of the University and as such the service rules as applicable to the Government
employee are still being implemented in respect of them.

5. On 01.07.1999 a Government Order was issued for granting leave encashment of 300 days
(maximum) in place of 240 days (maximum) on the basis of the recommendations of Pay
Committee, 1997. On 03.07.2000 another Government Order was issued whereby power to grant
leave encashment for 300 days (maximum) in place of 240 days (maximum) was delegated to the
head of departments of the State Government and the said benefit was made effective w.e.f.
1.7.1999.

6. On 31.08.2006 the Executive Council of the University held meeting wherein it was
decided that the benefit of leave encashment of 300 days be made available to the non teaching
staff of the University w.e.f. 1.7.1999 in accordance with Government Oorder dated 3.7.2000
mentioned above.

7. On 20.06.2007 the Finance Committee of the University held meeting in presence of the
respondent N?.2 wherein also the proposal of grant of leave encashment for 300 days in accordance
with Government Order dated 3.7.2000 to the non teaching staff of the University was approved.

8. On 21.04.2012, petitioner No.1 submitted an application before the respondent No.5 thereby
making prayer that he may be granted benefit of leave encashment after his retirement. On
03.07.2012, the Executive Council of the University held meeting wherein the matter of grant of
benefits of leave encashment towards 25 employees who had retired prior to the date of meeting
were considered.

9. On 19.07.2012, the Executive Council of the University further held another meeting in
which matter of grant of benefit of leave encashment towards 10 employees who retired prior to
31.7.2012 was also considered. However, consideration in respect of petitioner No.1 was postponed
for future as he was not retired prior to 31.07.2014. Moreover, in furtherance of the aforesaid
meetings held on 3.7.2012 and 19.7.2012 several persons were granted benefits of leave
encashment.

10. On 22.08.2012, respondent No.1 issued a Government Order with a direction for recovery
of the amount of leave encashment given to the employees of the State Universities after initiating
departmental inquiry against the erring officers/employees as the same was said to given in absence
of any order passed by the State Government and as such the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vishwavidhylay
Karmchari Mahasangh raised agitation.
4 All. Ram Laut Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
135

11. On 21.08.2014, respondent No.1 issued another Government Order, whereby the
implementation of the previous Government Order dated 22.8.2012 mentioned above was stayed
till further orders. On 17.11.2014, a meeting of respondent No.4 and Karmchari Parishad of
respondent No.3 was held in which it was decided that the proceedings for grant of leave
encashment would be initiated and the same would be granted in accordance with law after making
review of the same with in a period of one month.

12. In the year 2014, another meeting of Registrars/Finance Officers of all State Universities
U.P. in the Chairmanship of the Special Secretary State Government of U.P. was held in which it
was directed that all those Universities who make payment of leave encashment from their sources
and those who can not make payment will submit a resolution to the State Government after getting
approval from their Executive Council.

13. On 15.12.2014, the meeting of Executive Council of respondent No.3 was held in
pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the State Government in which it was decided that the
previous arrangement of leave encashment be made applicable in respect of the non teaching staff
of respondent No.3 and the State Government may be informed accordingly and matter be referred
to the State Government that the University is running in loss and the matter may also be placed
before the Finance Committee of the University for examining as to whether the University is
competent to bear the expense in question. Moreover it was decided that status quo be maintained
for leave encashment as it was earlier. However, till date no action whatsoever has been taken
regarding payment of amount of leave encashment to the petitioners despite the repeated
representations made by them, though the petitioners have a legal right of being paid amount of
leave encashment for 300 days consequent upon their retirement. Hence, the present writ petition
has been filed.

14. In a similar matter in the case of Vidyotma Dwivedi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and
others, was subject matter of challenge in Special Appeal (Defective) No.43 of 2022 by the State,
which has been dismissed against which Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.20622 of 2022; State of
U.P. and others Vs. Vidyotma Dwivedi and another, was filed which has also been dismissed vide
judgment and order dated 20.11.2025.

15. It would be worth noticing that Statutes 22 to 38 forms part of Chapter XXII, which deals
with qualification and conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the affiliated colleges. Clause
36.01 clearly provides that leave rules applicable to the Government servants from time to time
shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of like status. The First Statutes of the University
have been framed by the State Government itself in exercise of its power under Section 50 of the
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Clause 36.01 of the Statutes of University is not shown to have
been amended or modified later in point of time. The expression 'mutatis mutandis' has been
interpreted by the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation and another Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another,
reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the report are relevant for the present
purposes, and therefore, are reproduced hereinafter:-
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"17. In Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 394, this court held as
under:(SCCp. 93, para 17)

"17. .... Earl Jowitt's 'The Dictionary of English Law (1959)' defines 'mutatis mutandis' as
'with the necessary changes in points of detail'. Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edn.1968)
defines 'mutatis mutandis' as:

'With the necessary changes in points of detail, meaning that matters or things are generally
the same, but to be altered when necessary, as to names, offices, and the like.'

... Extension of an earlier Act 'mutatis mutandis' to a later Act brings in the idea of adaptation,
but so far only as it is necessary for the purpose, making a change without altering the essential
nature of the things changed, subject of course to express provisions made in the later Act.... In the
circumstances the conclusion reached by the High Court that the two Acts were independent of
each other was wrong. We are of the view that it is necessary to read and to construe the two Acts
together as if the two Acts are one, and while doing so to give effect to the provisions of the Act
which is a later one in preference to the provisions of the Principal Act wherever the Act has
manifested an intention to modify the Principal Act."

Similarly, in Prahlad Sharma v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 113, the phrase "mutatis
mutandis" has been explained as under: (SCCp. 120, para 11)

"11. The expression 'mutatis mutandis' itself implies applicability of any provision with
necessary changes in points of detail." (See also: Mariyappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1998 SC
1334; and Janba (dead) thr. Lrs. v. Gopikabai (Smt.), AIR 2000 SC 1771).

18. Thus, the phrase "mutatis mutandis" implies that a provision contained in other part of the
statute or other statutes would have application as it is with certain changes in points of detail."

16. The applicability of leave rules upon the non-teaching staff of the University concerned
would, therefore, be such as are meant for the Government Servant, from time to time, of like
status. It would, however, be subject to any changes that may have been introduced under the
Statutes or the Act of 1973 or any other applicable provision in law. Attention of the Court has not
been invited to any provision in the Act of 1973 or the Statutes or Ordinances, which limits the
applicability of leave rules meant for State Government employees of like status, upon the nonteaching staff of colleges affiliated to the State University in question.

17. The respondents stand throughout has been that the retiral benefits, which are admissible
to such employees, do not include provision of leave rules, so as to extend the benefit of leave
encashment to the employees concerned. This argument cannot be accepted inasmuch as grant of
retiral benefits would be a separate and distinct aspect from the admissibility of leave rules
applicable upon the employees concerned. The grant of retiral benefits to employee of the
institution concerned would be in accordance with Section 33 of the Act of 1973 as well as any
other provision contained in the Statutes or the Government Order issued in that regard.
4 All. Ram Laut Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
137

18. So far as leave rules are concerned they constitute a separate aspect relating to conditions
of service and would not, by necessary implication, be included in the retiral benefits due and
payable to an employee concerned. It is otherwise not in issue that benefit of leave encashment has
been extended to employees of the State Government, who are of similar status as that of the
present petitioners. Clause 36.01 otherwise is clearly applicable in the facts of the present case. In
absence of any other provision which excludes the applicability of leave rules or the provisions of
leave encashment admissible to similar employees of the State Government, the respondents would
not be justified in denying benefit of leave encashment or other benefits of leave rules to the
present petitioners.

19. So far as argument of learned Additional CSC, with reference to Section 21(3) and 21(4)
of the Act of 1973 is concerned, it would be worth noticing that Sub-clause (3) of Section 21
merely provides that no expenditure in respect of which approval of the State Government is
required by this Act or the Statutes or Ordinances shall be incurred except with such approval
previously obtained, and no post shall be created either in the University or in any Institute or
constituent college maintained by the University except with the prior approval of the State
Government. Sub-clause (3), therefore, would have no applicability, inasmuch as the Act, Statutes
or Ordinances do not require any specific approval of the State Government for grant of approval to
leave rules upon the employees. Sub-clause (4) of Section 21 also deals with the pay and other
allowances to various categories of the employees, as may be approved by the State Government.
The respondents would have been justified in resisting petitioners' claim in case a provision like
Clause 36.01 was not in existence in the First Statutes and no approval was granted by the State in
that regard. The provisions of sub-clause (4) of Section 21 cannot be pressed into service to deny
petitioners' entitlement once the Statutes of the University are specific in applying provisions of
leave rules upon non-teaching employees mutatis mutandis.

20. Applicability of leave rules, therefore, cannot be denied or disputed by the respondents, in
so far as non-teaching staff of affiliated colleges are concerned. Leave rules otherwise are not
shown to have been modified in its applicability to such class of employees by virtue of any
provisions contained in the Statutes or any other applicable provisions of law. In that circumstances
petitioners would clearly be entitled to all benefits which are otherwise admissible to similarly
placed employees of the Government regarding grant of leave. The applicable provisions of the
financial rules contained in Financial Handbook in Volume 2 Part 4 under Fundamental Rules 58 to
104 including Sub-rule (1)(12) of Rule 81(b) of the Fundamental Rules, which provides that leave
shall be admissible to Government servants and if such Government servant surrenders such leave
he shall be entitled to encashment of leave, would be applicable in the facts of the present case also.

21. So far as respondents' objection with reference to Government Order is concerned, a
perusal thereof would go to show that a specific approval of the State has been found to be wanting
for the purpose of extending benefit of leave rules to non-teaching staff of the University. This
Government Order apparently would have no applicability in the facts of the present case,
inasmuch as service conditions of non-teaching staff of the University are governed by a separate
set of rules contained in Chapter 34 of the Ordinances framed for the University, wherein no such
provision is shown to exist as is contained under Clause 36.01, meant for non-teaching staff of the
affiliated college. Law is otherwise settled that in hierarchy of laws a provision contained in Statute
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would stand on a higher pedestal and in the event of conflict with the Government Order, the
provision of the Statute would prevail. This Government Order, therefore, cannot be relied upon to
deny consideration to petitioners' claim.

22. In view of the discussions aforesaid, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

23. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents including State of U.P. to extend benefit
of leave rules to the petitioners including the benefit of leave encashment in accordance with Rule
81(b) of the Fundamental Rules as are available to similarly placed employees of the Government.

24. A specific order would be passed in that regard and the benefits due thereunder would be
disbursed to petitioners, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified
copy of this order.

25. The respondents while calculating the benefits due and payable to petitioners would take
note of any subsequent modification, which may have been made in leave rules or the Government
Orders, which may have been issued specifying the entitlement in that regard including
Government Orders.

26. No order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 138
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 8001 of 2025

Satyaverat ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether, when the only charge proved against the petitioner was that he was not diligent in
procuring information from earlier Accountants and failed to pursue recovery proceedings
initiated about six years prior to his posting, he could be held entirely responsible for the
outstanding dues of Rs. 214.87 lakhs and subjected to recovery of the entire amount by way of
punishment; and whether such punishment was shockingly disproportionate.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 - ss.3, 5 - Departmental
proceedings - Punishment - Petitioner while working as Accountant at Electricity Distribution