# Ranveer Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1555
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 13327 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranveer-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50139
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Jal Sansthan (Rural) U.P.
Nagarpalika
Non-Centralized
Services
Retirement
Benefits
Regulation,
1984
(Rules of 1984) - Uttar Pradesh Qualifying
Service for Pension and Validation Act,
2021 - Issue: Whether services rendered
before
regularization
by
daily
wage
employees who worked on Class III posts
in the Jal Sansthan and were later
regularized
in
continuation
of
their
services is to be counted for the purpose
of pension and other retiral benefits ?
Held: Daily rated employees perform the
same duties as regular employees and are
throughout treated as regular employees.
They were also regularized in continuation
of their work charge services. So far as the
Act of 2021 is concerned, the same is
applicable only to employees of the State
Government. Even otherwise, the Act of
2021 has already been read down by this
Court in its judgment dated 17.02.2023
passed in Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr.
Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others). Respondents were directed to
ensure regular payment of pensionary and
other
retirement
benefits
to
the
petitioners, who have already retired,
1556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the Pension Rules, treating their
entire service, including services rendered
by them as daily rated employees prior to
their regularization, as qualifying services
for pensionary benefits, within a period of
three months.
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1555
sitting in appeal without returning a finding
that the disciplinary enquiry stood vitiated
for breach of statutory provisions of the
Rules, 1991, or that the punishment was not
commensurate to the guilt, or perverse.

35. In P. Gunasekaran (supra),
Supreme Court reiterated and cautioned the
Court / Tribunals not to act as an appellate
authority in disciplinary proceedings.

"12. Despite the well-settled
position, it is painfully disturbing to note
that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary
proceedings,
re-appreciating
even
the
evidence
before
the
enquiry
officer..............."

[Refer: B.C. Chaturvedi versus
Union of India and others9 and S.
Sreesanth versus The Board of Control for
Cricket in India10]

36. In any case, in our opinion, the
punishment imposed upon the respondent is
of much lesser rigour and not commensurate
to the guilt having regard to the fact that
respondent was member of a disciplined
Force, a more severe punishment was
warranted in the given facts. The Disciplinary
Authority took a liberal view while imposing
punishment having regard to the fact that the
respondent was absent from almost seven
years and of having indulged in criminal
activity.

37. For the reasons recorded herein
above, impugned judgement and order
dated 23 March, 2021, passed by the
Tribunal is set aside and quashed.

38. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.

39. No cost.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1555
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-A No. 13327 of 2020

Ranveer Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Akhilesh Mishra, Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Utsav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shri Ram Pandey

Civil Law - Jal Sansthan (Rural) U.P.
Nagarpalika
Non-Centralized
Services
Retirement
Benefits
Regulation,
1984
(Rules of 1984) - Uttar Pradesh Qualifying
Service for Pension and Validation Act,
2021 - Issue: Whether services rendered
before
regularization
by
daily
wage
employees who worked on Class III posts
in the Jal Sansthan and were later
regularized
in
continuation
of
their
services is to be counted for the purpose
of pension and other retiral benefits ?
Held: Daily rated employees perform the
same duties as regular employees and are
throughout treated as regular employees.
They were also regularized in continuation
of their work charge services. So far as the
Act of 2021 is concerned, the same is
applicable only to employees of the State
Government. Even otherwise, the Act of
2021 has already been read down by this
Court in its judgment dated 17.02.2023
passed in Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr.
Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others). Respondents were directed to
ensure regular payment of pensionary and
other
retirement
benefits
to
the
petitioners, who have already retired,
1556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the Pension Rules, treating their
entire service, including services rendered
by them as daily rated employees prior to
their regularization, as qualifying services
for pensionary benefits, within a period of
three months.
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Jai Prakash Vs St. of U.P. & ors., WRIT - A
No. - 10405 of 2022 dated 17.03.2023
2. Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2019) 10
SCC 516
3. Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A
No.8968 of 2022 dated 17.02.2023
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rahul Mishra, learned
counsel for petitioner, Shri Ram Pandey,
Advocate appearing for respondent Jal
Sansthan and learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

2. Petitioners have approached this
Court
challenging
the
Order
dated
20.02.2020
whereby
the
respondent
authority has refused to enroll employees
of the Jal-Sansthan under the old pension
scheme on the ground that they were
regularized after the old pension scheme
was
abolished
and
for
a
prayer
commanding the respondents to pay regular
pension to the petitioners by counting their
past services rendered on daily wage posts
in the respondent-Sansthan.

3. The facts of the case are that the
petitioners were appointed as daily wage
employees on class III posts in the Jal
Sansthan between the years 1989-1991.
They were throughout treated as regular
employees and later regularized in the Jal
Sansthan between 2005-2011. Counsel for
the petitioners informs that some of the
petitioners are already retired.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners
submits that by letter dated 30.08.2018,
respondent-Jal
Sansthan
(Rural)
has
adopted U.P. Nagarpalika Non-Centralized
Services Retirement Benefits Regulation,
1984 (Rules of 1984) for regulating
pension of its employees. Under the same
rules, petitioners are entitled to pensionary
and other retirement benefits. Further
submission is that same rules with regard to
employees of the Nagar Palika was
interpreted by this Court by its judgment
dated 17.03.2023 in WRIT - A No. -
10405 of 2022 (Jai Prakash vs State of
U.P. and 4 others) wherein daily wager
employees who were later regularised in
continuation of their services were held
entitled for benefits of the Old Pension
Scheme. He has further relied on a
judgment by a three Judge Bench of
Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2019) 10 SCC
516 where it was held that services
rendered before regularization must be
counted for the purpose of pension and
other
retiral
benefits.
The
relevant
paragraphs of the judgment in the case of
Prem Singh (supra) reads:

"8.
We
first
consider
the
provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh
Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (for short
'the 1961 Rules'). Rule 3(8) of the 1961
Rules which contains the provisions in
respect of qualifying service is extracted
hereunder: "3. In these rules, unless is
anything repugnant in the subject or
context-

(1)-(7) * * *
5 All. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1557

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

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

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

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

(iii) periods of service in a post
paid from contingencies shall also count as
qualifying service.

Note. If service rendered in a
non-pensionable
establishment
workcharged establishment or in a post paid
from contingencies falls between two
periods
of
temporary
service
in
a
pensionable establishment or between a
period of temporary service and permanent
service in a pensionable establishment, it
will

not constitute an interruption of
service.

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

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

First - The service must be under
Government.

Second - The employment must be
substantive and permanent."

These three conditions are fully
explained in the following Regulations.

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

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

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

(ii) periods of service in workcharged establishment; and

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

10. The qualifying service is the one
which is in accordance with the provisions of
Regulation 368 i.e. holding a substantive post
on a permanent establishment. The proviso to
Rule 3(8) clarify that continuous, temporary or
officiating
service
followed
without
interruption by confirmation in the same or
any other post is also included in the
qualifying service except in the case of
periods of temporary and officiating service
in a non-pensionable establishment. The
service in workcharged establishment and
period of service in a post paid from
contingencies shall also not count as
qualifying service.
1558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The Note appended to Rule
3(8) contains a provision that if the service
is
rendered
in
a
non-pensionable
establishment, work-charged establishment
or in a post paid from contingencies, falls
between two periods of temporary service
in a pensionable establishment or between
a period of
temporary
service
and
permanent
service
in
a
pensionable
establishment, it will not constitute an
interruption of service. Thus, the Note
contains a clear provision to count the
qualifying service rendered in workcharged,
contingency
paid
and
nonpensionable
establishment
to
be
counted towards pensionable service, in the
exigencies provided therein.

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

.........

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

31. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it was unfair on the part of
the State Government and its officials to
take work from the employees on the workcharged basis. They ought to have resorted
to an appointment on regular basis. The
taking of work on the work-charged basis
for
long
amounts
to
adopting
the
exploitative device. Later on, though their
services have been regularised. However,
the period spent by them in the workcharged
establishment
has
not
been
5 All. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1559
counted towards the qualifying service.
Thus, they have not only been deprived of
their due emoluments during the period
they served on less salary in work-charged
establishment but have also been deprived
of counting of the period for pensionary
benefits as if no services had been rendered
by them. The State has been benefitted by
the services rendered by them in the
heydays of their life on less salary in workcharged establishment.

32. In view of the Note appended
to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, there is a
provision to count service spent on workcharged, contingencies or nonpensionable
service, in case, a person has rendered
such service in a given between period of
two
temporary
appointments
in
the
pensionable establishment or

has rendered such service in the
interregnum two periods of temporary and
permanent employment. The work-charged
service can be counted as qualifying
service for pension in the aforesaid
exigencies.

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

34. As it would be unjust, illegal
and impermissible to make aforesaid
classification to make Rule 3(8) valid and
non-discriminatory, we have to read down
the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that
services
rendered
even
prior
to
regularisation in the capacity of workcharged employees, contingency paid fund

employees or non-pensionable
establishment
shall
also
be
counted
towards the qualifying service even if such
service is not preceded by temporary or
regular appointment in a pensionable
establishment.

35. In view of the Note appended
to Rule 3(8), which we have read down, the
provision contained in Regulation 370 of
1560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Civil Services Regulations has to be
struck down as also the instructions
contained in Para 669 of the Financial
Handbook.

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

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

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

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

7. So far as Act of 2021 is concerned,
the same is applicable only upon the
employees of State Government. Even
otherwise Act of 2021 is already read down
by
this
Court
by
judgment
dated
17.02.2023 passed in Writ-A No.8968 of
2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
and others). Relevant paragraphs of the
same reads as:

"9. Therefore, the question now
before this Court is whether by bringing
Act of 2021, the State Government has
done away with the vice pointed out by the
Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh
(supra). In the said judgment, the Supreme
Court found that the State Government has
5 All. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1561
adopted exploitative labour practice by
taking work of regular employees from
work charge employees on long term basis
without any rationale classification while
refusing them benefits available to regular
employees. Supreme Court specifically held
that the State Government can not get
involved in corrupt labour practices. On
the aforesaid grounds, the Supreme Court
read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) of the
Rules of 1961 and struck down Regulation
370 of Civil Services Regulations and Para
669 of the Financial Handbook.

10. It is the duty of State to create
new temporary or permanent posts as per
its needs and make appointments on the
same. Law also permits State to appoint
daily wagers or work charge employees,
but only when the work is for short period
or is in a work charge establishment for
fixed duration. Law does not permit the
State to take work for long period,
extending even for the entire working life of
a person, on temporary or work charge
basis. In such cases, it is the duty of State
to
create
new
posts
and
make
appointments, giving all benefits of regular
employees. Otherwise, State would be
found to be adopting exploitative labour
practice. This is the vice pointed out by the
Supreme Court in Prem Singh's case
(supra), and instead of removing the same,
the State by Section 2 of the Act of 2021 has
extended the sphere of its illegality. By
Section 2 of the Act of 2021, it desires to
take benefit of its own failure of creating
posts in time and making appointments on
the same, by not counting the said period of
such service for pensionary benefits. State
still fails to explain the rationale on the
basis of which it has created this new
classification and the manner in which, by
the amended provision, it has removed the
irrationality.

In case Section 2 of the Act of
2021 is given a literal meaning it would
mean that services rendered by a person on
a temporary or permanent post alone can
be counted for pension. The same would
again be an exploitative device and labour
malpractice,
as
by
this,
the
State
Government is again attempting to use
persons to work for it on long term basis,
just like regular employees, without giving
them benefits they are entitled to as regular
employees. The very vice pointed by the
Supreme Court in the judgment of Prem
Singh (supra) with regard to work charge
employees is, in fact, now made applicable
to even larger number of employees and
extended to daily wagers and other persons
not working on a temporary or a
permanent post including, work charge
employees.

In case of V. Sukumaran vs. State
of Kerala (2020) 8 SCC 106, the Supreme
Court held:

"22. We begin by, once again,
emphasising that the pensionary provisions
must be given a liberal construction as a
social welfare measure. This does not imply
that something can be given contrary to
rules, but the very basis for grant of such
pension must be kept in mind i.e. to
facilitate a retired government employee to
live with dignity in his winter of life and,
thus,
such
benefit
should
not
be
unreasonably denied to an employee, more
so on technicalities."

Thus, again to save Section 2 of
the Act of 2021 from the vice/arbitrariness,
in the spirit of the judgment of Prem Singh
(supra), the word 'post' is required to be
diluted to save it from arbitrariness and
hence, the word 'post' used in Section 2 of
the Act of 2021, be it temporary or
1562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permanent, has to be read down as
'services
rendered
by
a
government
employee, be it of temporary or permanent
nature'."

8. The pension rules adopted by the
respondent Jal Sansthan (Rural) have
already been read down by this Court in the
case of Jai Prakash (Supra), being held in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, as they create an artificial
categorization
of
similarly
situated
employees. Relevant portion the said
judgment reads:

"The present Rules of 1984 are
parallel to the Rules of State Government
which have been read down by the Supreme
Court, being held in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, as they
create an artificial categorization of
similarly situated employees. In the
present
case
also
an
artificial
classification is created as admittedly, as
the daily wage employees perform the
same duties as the regular employees
and are throughout treated as the
regular
employee.
They
were
also
regularized in continuation of their
services. Thus, the matter is squarely
covered by the law settled in case of
Prem Singh (Supra)."

9. In the present case also an artificial
classification is created as admittedly, as
the daily rated employees perform the same
duties as the regular employees and are
throughout treated as the regular employee.
They were also regularized in continuation
of their work charge services. Thus, the
matter is squarely covered by the law
settled in case of Prem Singh (Supra) and
Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra) and Jai Praksh
(supra).

10. Thus, the writ petition is allowed
and impugned order dated 20.02.2020 is set
aside.

11. Respondents are directed to
ensure regular payment of pensionary and
other retirement benefits to the petitioners
who have already retired, under the Pension
Rules,
treating
their
entire
service,
including services rendered by them as
daily rated employees prior to their
regularization as qualifying services for
pensionary benefits within a period of three
months.

12. Respondents are further directed
to enroll petitioners who have not yet
retired under the Old Pension Scheme by
adding the services of petitioners rendered
by them as daily rated employees.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1562
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 139 of 2022

Smt. Suman Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Ram Manohar Lohia Inst. Of
Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rani Singh, Sri Abhineet Jaiswal, Sri
Chinmay Mishra, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anupras Singh, C.S.C., Sri Vinayak
Saxena