# Rambachan Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 454
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-17
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18067 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rambachan-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53570
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C., Santosh Kumar Singh, Sri A.B. Paul

Issue for consideration
The
core
issue
revolves
around
the
interpretation and applicability of the U.P.
Development
Authorities
(Non-Centralized
Services) Retirement Benefits Rule 2011 in
determining pension eligibility for employees of
Development Authorities who were initially
engaged as daily wagers and later regularizedAfter regularization he has rendered service
much less than 20 years.

Headnotes
Service Law-U.P. Development Authorities
(Non-Centralized
Services)
Retirement
Benefits
Rule
2011-Pension-Qualifying
Service-Petitioner seeking mandamus for
payment of pension and retiral benefits
under (Rule 2011) including counting of
pre-regularization
daily
wage
service
towards "qualifying service" is dismissed.

Held
Petitioner has not completed qualifying service
of 20 years, as required under "Rules 2011"
after he got regularized, therefore, in strict
interpretation of said Rules, no relief granted to
the petitioner- As the "qualifying service" Rule
2(i)
for
pension
demands
20
years
of
substantive/regular/permanent
employment
under
the
Authority,
excluding
daily
wage/temporary/ad
hoc
periods
unless
continuous
and
immediately
followed
by
7 All. Rambachan yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455
confirmation
without
interruption-Preregularization daily wage service does not count
towards
this
threshold,
as
it
is
nonsubstantive/non-permanent,
rendering
postregularization service alone (13 years 4 months
6 days) insufficient for eligibility-Prem Singh Vs.
St. of UP (extending work-charged service for
qualifying eligibility) inapplicable to daily wagers
under Rules,2011, as clarified in Uday Pratap
Thakur Vs. St. of Bihar-limited to counting for
eligibility, not quantum and not retroactive
regularization-Jai Prakash Tripathi Vs.St.of UP
(granting relief via reading down) stayed
pending
reference-Issue
of
reading
down
statutes without vires challenge in Kanhai Ram
Vs. St.of UP before Division Bench-reference
undecided-Thus, writ petition is accordingly
disposed of with an observation that on basis of
outcome of reference pending, the petitioner
will have a liberty to avail legally available
remedy.(Para 13 to 19) (E-6)

Case law Cited

Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & Ors (2019) 10 SCC
516 , Anand Prakash Mani Tripathi Vs St. of U.P.
& Ors (Civil Appeal No. 6118 of 2024),decided
on
07.05.2024;
Gorakhpur
Development
Authority & Anr Vs St. of U.P. & Ors (Special
Appeal
No.
237
of
2023).
decided
on
18.07.2023 & Jai Prakash Tripathi Vs St. of U.P.
& Ors 2023: AHC:57303, Uday Pratap Thakur &
Anr. Vs The St. of Bih. & Ors (2023) INSC 461,
Ram Sewak Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & Ors (2024)
:AHC:17407, Kanhai Ram & Ors Vs St. of U.P. &
Ors (2024):AHC:52835-referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Development Authorities (Non-Centralized
Services) Retirement Benefits Rule 2011
List of Keywords
Pension; Qualifying Service; Daily Wager;
Regularization;
Retiral
Benefits;
Gorakhpur
Development Authority; Azamgarh Development
Authority;
Retrenchment;
Reinstatment;
Superannuation;
Model
Employer;
U.P.
Development
Authorities
(Non-Centralized
Services) Retirement Benefits Rule 2011.
Case arising From
Service Law :WRIT-A No. - 18067 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rambachan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & 2
Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner
Ashok K Pandey, Shrish Kumar Jaiswal
Advs. for Respondent
C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Singh

## Text

454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
वर्ष पूवष की entries है। यह रवजस्टर काफी पहले से है जो विवश्चत
रूप से इिको पूवष वलवपक द्वारा हस्तगत वकया गया होगा। यवद
अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा प्रावधकरण के प्रवत सही विष्ठा व वियत से
कायष वकया गया होता तो डुप्लीकेट पत्ावली खोले जािे से पूवष यह
ववचार अवश्य वकया गया होता वक इस भूखण्ड के समक्ष इण्री ररक्त
तयों है जबवक अवधकांि अन्द्य भूखण्डों के समक्ष इण्री पूवष से है।
यवद अपचारी कमषचारी को पक्ष द्वारा प्रस्तुत कूटरवचत प्रपत् सही
प्रतीत हो रहे थे तो भी इस रवजस्टर में कोई इन्द्री ि होिे के कारण
अन्द्य वकसी अवभलेख में प्रश्नगत भूखण्ड के समक्ष अंकि को देखा
जािा चावहए था अथवा अपिे उच्चावधकारी को इस सम्बन्द्ध में
अवगत कराते हुये उिसे स्पष्ट मागषदिषि प्राप्त वकया जािा चावहए था
वकन्द्तु अपचारी कमषचारी द्वारा उपरोक्त में से कोई कायषवाही िहीं की गई
एवं पक्ष द्वारा प्रस्तुत अवभलेखों को ही सत्य मािते हुये ववक्रय ववभाग
के अवभलेखों से वबिा वकसी आवंटि सत्यापि के पत्ावली अग्रसाररत
कर दी गई। श्री कंचि गुप्ता द्वारा सवमवत के मन्द्तव्य को कल्पिािीलता
से परे बताया गया है, जबवक उपरोक्त ववणषत तथ्यों से स्पष्ट है वक
सवमवत एवं जांच अवधकारी का कथि कल्पिािीलता से परे ि होकर
श्री गुप्ता द्वारा अपिे गलत कृत्यों को सही ठहरािे हेतु कल्पिािीलता से
युक्त रेफरेन्द्स रवजस्टर आवद से सम्बवन्द्धत उत्तर वदया गया है।"

23. Petitioner is not able to contradict
the aforesaid findings either on fact or on law.

24. In aforesaid circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, the
directions given by Appellate Authority were
complied with; petitioner was granted
opportunity to submit his reply; reply filed by
petitioner
was
considered
but
found
inadequate;
petitioner
was
afforded
opportunity of personal hearing and was
satisfied with it; the findings returned against
each charge are based on material on record
and all the charges were rightly proved.

25. So far as punishment is concerned,
since it is a case of forgery and huge financial
loss was caused, therefore, p unishment of
dismissal is not shockingly disproportionate to
the
proved
charges.
Accordingly
no
interference is required under writ jurisdiction.

26.
Writ
petition
is
accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 454
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 18067 of 2024

Rambachan Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashok K Pandey, Shrish Kumar Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Santosh Kumar Singh, Sri A.B. Paul

Issue for consideration
The
core
issue
revolves
around
the
interpretation and applicability of the U.P.
Development
Authorities
(Non-Centralized
Services) Retirement Benefits Rule 2011 in
determining pension eligibility for employees of
Development Authorities who were initially
engaged as daily wagers and later regularizedAfter regularization he has rendered service
much less than 20 years.

Headnotes
Service Law-U.P. Development Authorities
(Non-Centralized
Services)
Retirement
Benefits
Rule
2011-Pension-Qualifying
Service-Petitioner seeking mandamus for
payment of pension and retiral benefits
under (Rule 2011) including counting of
pre-regularization
daily
wage
service
towards "qualifying service" is dismissed.

Held
Petitioner has not completed qualifying service
of 20 years, as required under "Rules 2011"
after he got regularized, therefore, in strict
interpretation of said Rules, no relief granted to
the petitioner- As the "qualifying service" Rule
2(i)
for
pension
demands
20
years
of
substantive/regular/permanent
employment
under
the
Authority,
excluding
daily
wage/temporary/ad
hoc
periods
unless
continuous
and
immediately
followed
by
7 All. Rambachan yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455
confirmation
without
interruption-Preregularization daily wage service does not count
towards
this
threshold,
as
it
is
nonsubstantive/non-permanent,
rendering
postregularization service alone (13 years 4 months
6 days) insufficient for eligibility-Prem Singh Vs.
St. of UP (extending work-charged service for
qualifying eligibility) inapplicable to daily wagers
under Rules,2011, as clarified in Uday Pratap
Thakur Vs. St. of Bihar-limited to counting for
eligibility, not quantum and not retroactive
regularization-Jai Prakash Tripathi Vs.St.of UP
(granting relief via reading down) stayed
pending
reference-Issue
of
reading
down
statutes without vires challenge in Kanhai Ram
Vs. St.of UP before Division Bench-reference
undecided-Thus, writ petition is accordingly
disposed of with an observation that on basis of
outcome of reference pending, the petitioner
will have a liberty to avail legally available
remedy.(Para 13 to 19) (E-6)

Case law Cited

Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & Ors (2019) 10 SCC
516 , Anand Prakash Mani Tripathi Vs St. of U.P.
& Ors (Civil Appeal No. 6118 of 2024),decided
on
07.05.2024;
Gorakhpur
Development
Authority & Anr Vs St. of U.P. & Ors (Special
Appeal
No.
237
of
2023).
decided
on
18.07.2023 & Jai Prakash Tripathi Vs St. of U.P.
& Ors 2023: AHC:57303, Uday Pratap Thakur &
Anr. Vs The St. of Bih. & Ors (2023) INSC 461,
Ram Sewak Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & Ors (2024)
:AHC:17407, Kanhai Ram & Ors Vs St. of U.P. &
Ors (2024):AHC:52835-referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Development Authorities (Non-Centralized
Services) Retirement Benefits Rule 2011
List of Keywords
Pension; Qualifying Service; Daily Wager;
Regularization;
Retiral
Benefits;
Gorakhpur
Development Authority; Azamgarh Development
Authority;
Retrenchment;
Reinstatment;
Superannuation;
Model
Employer;
U.P.
Development
Authorities
(Non-Centralized
Services) Retirement Benefits Rule 2011.
Case arising From
Service Law :WRIT-A No. - 18067 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rambachan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & 2
Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner
Ashok K Pandey, Shrish Kumar Jaiswal
Advs. for Respondent
C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Singh

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

1. Petitioner was appointed on the post
of Chowkidar as a Daily Wager with
Gorakhpur Development Authority on
06.08.1988. He was retrenched by an order
dated 10.03.1993, therefore, he filed WritA No. 25931 of 1993, which was disposed
of vide order dated 19.05.1993 with liberty
to represent before concerned authority
against order of retrenchment with further
direction
that
said
representation
be
decided by a reasoned and speaking order.

2. It is the case of petitioner that
thereafter he has filed an application
against order of retrenchment, however, no
decision was taken, therefore, he has filed a
contempt petition which was disposed of to
consider the case of petitioner. Still
thereafter representation of petitioner was
not considered, therefore, he has filed a
fresh writ petition being Writ-A No. 26246
of 1994. Said writ petition was allowed
vide order dated 17.05.1999 and impugned
order dated 10.03.1993 as well as orders
dated 10.11.1993 and 31.03.1994 were
quashed and a direction was passed that
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner
be
reinstated
with
all
consequential benefits of service with
payment of arrears of salary w.e.f.
10.03.1993. A further direction was passed
to consider the services of petitioner for
regularization.

3. Gorakhpur Development Authority
again failed to follow the direction referred
above, therefore, petitioner filed a contempt
petition and finally the order dated
17.05.1999 was complied on 22.09.2003
and petitioner joined after a decade of his
order of retrenchment.

4. It is further case of petitioner that
later on he has moved an application on
24.12.2010 to allow him to join as regular
employee and he placed reliance on an
Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2010.
Said Office Memorandum is not annexed
alongwith the writ petition.

5. Petitioner thereafter transferred
from Gorakhpur Development Authority to
Azamgarh
Development
Authority
on
22.10.2014 and he joined at his transferred
place and attained age of superannuation on
30.04.2024. During period of service, an
Authority
of
Azamgarh
Development
Authority issued a communication dated
09.03.2015 to Branch Manager of State
Bank of India, Azamgarh to allow
petitioner and other employees to open
their respective pension fund account.

6.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
petitioner has approached this Court by
way of filing present writ petition seeking
following reliefs:

"1. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing to the respondent no. 2 & 3 to pay
the
retiral
benefit
of
the
petitioner
including
the
pension
and
other
consequential benefits in accordance to the
Rule
Uttar
Pradesh
Development
Authorities
Non-Centralized
Services
Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding to
the respondents-authority to count his
services as daily wagers prior to his
regularization
and
fix
pension
with
consequential benefits accordingly the Rule
Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities
Non-Centralized
Services
Retirement
Benefits Rules, 2011.

3. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing to the
respondent
no.
2
to
decide
the
representation dated 22.07.2024 moved by
the petitioner. (ANNEXURE NO. 7 to this
Writ Petition).

4. Issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the circumstance
of the case.

5. Award the cost of the petition
in favour of the petitioners."

7. This Court has passed following
order on 19.11.2024:

"(Order on the memo of Writ
Petition)

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner has placed reliance upon a
decision of mine in Ram Sewak Yadav v.
State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC:17407.
On the other hand, learned Counsel
appearing for the Azamgarh Development
Authority has placed reliance upon an
interim order passed by the Division Bench
7 All. Rambachan yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
in Special Appeal No. 415 of 2024, Meerut
Development Authority, Meerut v. Azad
Singh and another, where, taking note of
another order of mine, where I had made a
reference to a larger Bench, to wit, Kanhai
Ram and others v. State of U.P. and others,
2024:AHC:52835, the direction of the
learned Single Judge to reckon ad hoc
services rendered prior of regularization
was stayed.

Prima facie, it appears that
Kanhai Ram (supra) is a case relating to
government servants, where the Uttar
Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension
and Validation Act, 2021 ('Act of 2021' for
short) squarely applies. Unless the vires of
the said act is challenged, the provisions of
the Act of 2021 can neither be struck down
nor read down.

By contrast, prima facie, in case
of local bodies like a Development
Authority or a Nagar Nigam, the Act of
2021 does not apply. The following
remarks of mine ins Ram Sewak Yadav
(supra) are very relevant :

15. Now, the definition of 'qualifying
service' in Regulation 2(m) of the Regulations of
1984 is almost cast in the same terms as that in Rule
3(8) of the Rules of 1961, that were read down by the
Supreme Court in Prem Singh to hold that services
rendered in the work-charged establishment would
be treated as 'qualifying service' under the last
mentioned Rules for the purpose of grant of pension.
The principle in Prem Singh, to reckon continuous
service in the work-charged establishment as
'qualifying service' under Rule 3(8) of the Rules of
1961, has been extended in its application to
continuous service of any kind, such as those
rendered on daily-wages or ad hoc basis, followed
by regularization, on the same post and in the same
capacity. These principles have been adopted,
particularly, in case of long retention in service on
daily-wages or ad hoc basis or work-charged
establishment, followed by regularization. Without
reference to much authority on this point, it would
suffice to refer to a decision of this Court in Kallu Ali
v. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (4) AWC 3840, a
case relating to an employee of a Development
Authority, who had worked for a long time on dailywages and then regularized in service. The issue had
arisen in Kallu Ali (supra) in the context of his
qualifying service for the purpose of entitlement to
pension. After a copious review of authority on the
point in Kallu Ali, it was held:

"28. The authorities referred to herein
above and those of this Court clearly hold that if an
employee has discharged duties whether temporarily
or as a daily wager or on ad hoc basis on a post for
which requirement was there and services of such an
employee have come to be regularized on the said
post or in the same capacity, the period spent before
regularization should be considered and added to
pensionable services. The courts have not approved
the act and conduct of the employer to deny pension
to its employee if he has rendered a number of
substantial year of continuous service in an
establishment leading to his / her regularization if
such an establishment holds a pensionable service.
The State Government has been taken to be a model
employer and a State being a welfare State, the
courts have shown serious concern in the event an
employee who has spent all his life in the service of
such establishment, stands denied pension
on his attaining the age of superannuation
and being retired as such."

Therefore, prima facie, the issues
that have arisen in Kanhai Ram would not,
at all, be attracted to the case of a
Development Authority.

Issue notice.

Notice on behalf of respondent
No. 1 is accepted by Mr. Girijesh Kumar
Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel, whereas that on behalf of
respondents Nos. 2 and 3, by Mr. Utkarsh
Prakash Singh, Advocate holding brief of
Mr.
Santosh
Kumar
Singh,
learned
Counsel. Both the learned Counsel are
granted two weeks' time to file a counter
affidavit.

Adjourned to 03.12.2024.

To be taken up in the additional cause
list for admission, along with a report regarding
regarding status of pleadings.

(Order
on
Civil
Misc.
Stay
Application No. 1 of 2024)

Issue notice."

8. Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for petitioner has reiterated the arguments
noted in above referred order that petitioner's due
retiral benefits be paid taking note of service prior
to his regularization also and accordingly fix
the pension in terms of U.P. Development
Authorities
Non-Centralized
Services
Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011 (hereinafter
referred to as "Rules, 2011"). Learned
counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on
the judgments passed by Supreme Court in
Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and others,
2019(10) SCC 516 and Anand Prakash
Mani Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others
(Civil Appeal No. 6118 of 2024), decided
on 07.05.2024 as well as this Court's
judgments in Gorakhpur Development
Authority and another vs. State of U.P.
and others (Special Appeal No. 237 of
2023), decided on 18.07.2023 and Jai
Prakash Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2023:AHC:57303.

9. Per contra, Sri A.B. Paul, Advocate and
Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel,
appearing for respondents have referred following
paragraph of counter affidavit:

"4. That before proceeding to give
para-wise reply to the various averments made in
the writ petition, at the very outset, the answeringrespondents crave to bring on record following
relevant facts for proper adjudication of the
controversy involved in the aforesaid writ
petition:-

(1) In exercise of the powers under
sub-section (7) of section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh
Town Planning and Development Act, 1973
(President's Act No. 11 of 1973), as re-enacted
and amended by the Uttar Pradesh 725
President's Act (Re-enactment with Modifications)
Act, 1974 (Uttar Pradesh Act No. 30 of 1974) the
Governor is hereby constituted an authority for
the Azamgarh Development Area declared as
such under Government Notification No. 1744/86-08-259 DA/90, dated the 20th June, 2008, from
the date of publication of this notification in the
Gazette, to be called the Azamgarh Development
Authority, Azamgarh.

(ii) Any law pertaining to appointment
or payment of salary or pension or retirement
benefit etc., of the employees prevailing before or
after constitution of the development authority
doesn't automatically applies on it until and
unless, the same is circulated by department of
House & urban planning, Government of UP, to
the
development
authorities
and
Development Authorities unless adopts its.

(iii) ADA is authorized to appoint
such number of officers and employees as
may
be
necessary
for
the
efficient
performance of its function. (Section 5 (2)
of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973).

(iv) In the Compliance of the
Government order dated 21.10.2010 and
7 All. Rambachan yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
letter dated 21.12.2010 issued by Uttar
Pradesh Housing and Urban Planning
Department for regularization of the
petitioner and pursuant to that office
Memorandum dated 24.12.2010 was issued
by the Gorakhpur Development Authority
and the finally petitioner offered his joining
on 24.12.2010 before Vice Chairman GDA.

(v) After Appointment of the
petitioner, a regulation named as Uttar
Pradesh
Development
Authority
NonCentralized Retirement benefit Rules, 2011
(now herein referred as Retirement Rules
2011) was promulgated by the Governor of
Uttar Pradesh on 11.09.2011 for grant of
retirement benefits to the Non-Centralized
employees of the Development Authorities.
The essential requirement which the present
Retirement Rules 2011 requires for getting
benefit retirement benefits are as following:

xxxx

Therefore as per the provision
Retirement Rules 2011, the petitioner is not
entitled to avail retirement benefits as:

1. He was appointed on the post of
'Chaukidar' in Non-Centralized Cadre on
24.12.2010 in the GDA after the Government
order dated 21.10.2010. Therefore, as per the
rule 1(3) proviso Retirement Rules 2011, he is
barred to avail the benefit.

2. His total service which can be
commutated after his appointment (24.12.2010)
till superannuation (30.04.2024) is of total 13
year 04 months 06 days. Therefore, as per the
proviso to Rule 2(Jha)(6) of Retirement Rules
2011, he did not qualify the criteria of 20 years
of regular service in the ADA."

10. Learned counsel for respondents have
placed reliance on a judgment passed by
Supreme Court in Uday Pratap Thakur and
another vs. The State of Bihar and others,
2023 INSC 461.

11. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the material available on
record.

12. The above referred facts are not under
much
dispute,
except
that
order
of
regularization dated 24.10.2010, as claimed by
petitioner, since it is not on record, though it has
not been specifically denied by respondents that
petitioner was treated as regular employee with
effect from said date.

13. It is the case of both parties that
petitioner's pension will be determined in terms
of Rules, 2011 and it would be applicable to the
employees appointed on or order 1st April,
2005. For the purpose of present case, it would
be appropriate to reproduced the definition of
the terms "pensionable post" and "qualifying
service",
as
provided
in
Rules,
2011,
hereinafter:

"(h) "Pensionable post" means a
post which fulfills the following three
conditions, namely-

(i) the post is in any cadre of the
Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities NonCentralized Services

(ii) the employment is substantive
and permanent, and

(iii) the service is paid by any
Authority,

(i) "Qualifying service" means the
service of a member of service which
conforms to the following conditions :-

(i) The service must be under an
Authority,
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) The employment must be
substantive /regular/ permanent.

(iii) The service must be paid by
an Authority excluding the following
periods of:

(i)
temporary
or
officiating
service in a non-pensionable establishment
under any Authority.

(ii) service in a work charged
establishment, and

(iii) service in a post paid from
contingencies:

Provided that the service of a
member of service does not qualify for
pension and gratuity, except compensation
gratuity, until he has completed twenty
years of age.

Provided further that period of
continued temporary or officiating service
under any Improvement Trust, Authority,
Palika Board, Nigam, Central or State
Government shall count. as qualifying
service if it is followed by confirmation on
the same post or any other post without any
interruption of service.

Note: If service 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 but shall not count towards
qualifying service." (Emphasis supplied)

14.
The
aforesaid
definition
of
"qualifying service" has provisos and its
first proviso says that the service of a
member of service does not qualify for
pension and gratuity, except compensation
gratuity, until he has completed twenty
years of age. Therefore, service of 20 years
would
fall
within
the
meaning
of
"qualifying service" and facts of present
case are tested accordingly.

15. In the present case petitioner was
appointed on 06.08.1988 as a Daily Wager
and he was retrenched vide order dated
10.03.1993. Much later, i.e., after a decade
a writ petition filed by petitioner was
allowed and retrenchment order was
quashed with direction that he may be
allowed to join w.e.f. 10.03.1993 and
accordingly he was allowed to join. It is
further case of petitioner that he was
regularized on 24.12.2010 and got retired
on 30.04.2024. Therefore, as per the case of
petitioner, after regularization he has
rendered service only for 13 years, 4
months and 6 days, i.e., much less than 20
years.

16. The interpretation of application of
aforesaid Rules, 2011 were not considered
by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram
Sewak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2024:AHC:17407 though it was
considered by another Coordinate Bench in
Jai Prakash Tripathi (supra) and relief
was granted. However, as referred above,
an off shoot of aforesaid order, i.e., a
Reference to a Division Bench in Kanhai
Ram and others vs. State of U.P. and
others,
2024:AHC:52835
is
under
consideration before a Division Bench of
this Court and the question for reference is
as follows:
7 All. Rambachan yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461

"The moot question in this matter,
therefore, is if in the absence of a challenge
to the vires of a statute, can it be read down
or virtually declared unconstitutional,
without being formally struck down. Before
embarking on the enterprise to find an
answer to this question, it would be
apposite
to
refer
to
a
matter
of
determination and cognizance by Single
Judges and Benches of this Court, where
the issue of vires of a statute is involved."

17. The judgment passed by Supreme
Court in Prem Singh (supra) is further
clarified by Supreme Court in Uday
Pratap Thakur (supra) and relevant
paragraphs
thereof
are
reproduced
hereinafter:

"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 and
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
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."

18. In aforesaid circumstances, the
relief sought by petitioner cannot be
granted on following grounds:

(a) Admittedly petitioner has not
completed qualifying service of 20 years,
as required under Rules, 2011 after he got
regularized,
therefore,
in
strict
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interpretation of said Rules, no relief can be
granted to petitioner.

(b) In Prem Singh (supra) the
Supreme Court has considered the issue of
qualifying
service
of
Work-charged
employees and it was further clarified in
Uday Pratap Thakur (supra), whereas
admittedly petitioner was a Daily Wager.
Otherwise also, interpretation of Rules,
2011 were not in issue in Prem Singh
(supra)
and
an
attempt
made
by
Coordinate Bench in Jai Prakash Tripathi
(supra) has already taken note by a
Division Bench considering a reference and
question involve therein has already been
reproduced
in
earlier
paragraph
of
judgment. Therefore, when the issue is
already before Larger Bench, any other
interpretation
would
not
be
legally
permissible.

19. In view of above, the prayer
sought in this writ petition cannot be
allowed. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of with an observation that on
basis of outcome of reference pending in
Kanhai Ram (supra) the petitioner will
have a liberty to avail legally available
remedy, if so advised.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 462
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 18224 of 2024

Muhammad Naeem ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Santosh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sheo Ram Singh

Issue for consideration
Claim for allocation of light duties on account of
disability ; declined by impugned order dated
04.10.2024 by respondent Corporation

Headnotes
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016
-sec.-20,21,33-Petitioner
suffered
disability during his service period- Court
ordered independent examination by medical
board-recorded that the petitioner suffers from
a locomotor disability to the extent of 40%-
impugned order invalidated the claim for light
duties-ground -that there is no provision for
grant of light duties to drivers in the
Corporation-an
imperative
duty
upon
the
respondents to identify posts to be held by
respective
categories
of
persons
with
disabilities-rights of persons with disabilities -
cannot be transgressed -cannot be allowedimpugned order set aside- directed to permit
the petitioner to continue on the post with light
duties. W.P. allowed.
Held:
The impugned order neglects to consider
relevant facts and document which attest the
disability of the petitioner and disclose the
recommendations of competent authorities. The
said action of the respondent employers
subverts the intent of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and is contrary to the
provisions of the enactment. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016