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

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1502
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-10
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 3660 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rudrabhan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51959
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Pensionary benefits -
Uttar Pradesh State Educational Institution
Employees Contributory Provident FundInsurance Pension Rules, 1965 - Rule
19(b), Regulation 21 of Chapter III , Uttar
Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
- Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the
Regulations made under the Act 1921 -
date of superannuation/retirement -
where a power is given to do a certain thing
in certain way, the thing must be done in
that way or not at all and the other
methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden. (Para - 20)

Matter for grant of pensionary benefits to
petitioner remitted back - petitioner appointed on
an ad-hoc basis - later regularized - attained age
of superannuation - Deputy Director of Education
(Secondary)
denied
petitioner's
pensionary
benefits - citing Government Order - petitioner
challenged order - ground - Government Order
does not have retrospective effect - entitled to
pensionary
benefits
from
the
date
of
superannuation. (Para -3 to 5 )

HELD: - Petitioner entitled to pensionary
benefits from the date of superannuation.
Government Order does not have retrospective
effect. Impugned order quashed. (Para -
22,23)

Writ Petition Allowed. ( E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decision of Special Appeal No.276 of 2006
decided on 28th August, 2010, then the
remedy lies in approaching the learned
Single Judge for recall/ review of the said
order.
In view of this, present special
appeal
in
question
is
dismissed
as
incompetent."'

23. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds
no reason to entertain the said appeal filed
by the petitioner in the teeth of the fact that
the Hon'ble Single Judge vide the impugned
order dated 07.11.2023 has made it open to
the parties to press their pleas before the
Registrar (respondent no.2) with a direction
to the said authority to pass order strictly in
accordance with law dealing with each and
every contentions either legal or factual
raised by the respective parties.

24. In view of the deliberations as
made hereinabove, we find no reason to
interfere with the impugned order.

25. The present Special Appeal is
accordingly dismissed with no order as to
cost.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1502
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ-A No. 3660 of 2024

Rudrabhan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arunima Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents
C.S.C.

(A) Service Law - Pensionary benefits -
Uttar Pradesh State Educational Institution
Employees Contributory Provident FundInsurance Pension Rules, 1965 - Rule
19(b), Regulation 21 of Chapter III , Uttar
Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
- Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the
Regulations made under the Act 1921 -
date of superannuation/retirement -
where a power is given to do a certain thing
in certain way, the thing must be done in
that way or not at all and the other
methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden. (Para - 20)

Matter for grant of pensionary benefits to
petitioner remitted back - petitioner appointed on
an ad-hoc basis - later regularized - attained age
of superannuation - Deputy Director of Education
(Secondary)
denied
petitioner's
pensionary
benefits - citing Government Order - petitioner
challenged order - ground - Government Order
does not have retrospective effect - entitled to
pensionary
benefits
from
the
date
of
superannuation. (Para -3 to 5 )

HELD: - Petitioner entitled to pensionary
benefits from the date of superannuation.
Government Order does not have retrospective
effect. Impugned order quashed. (Para -
22,23)

Writ Petition Allowed. ( E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Chairman
Railway
Board
Vs
C.R.
Rangadhamaiah , AIR (SC) 1997 0 3828
(Constitutional Bench)

2. Punj. St. Cooperative Agricultural Development
Bank Ltd Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, AIR
(SC) 2022 0 1349

3. Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayan &
ors. Vs Estgappan Cherian & Anr., 2021(10) SCC
210

4. Nazir Ahmad Vs King-Emperor, 1936 SEC
OnLine PC 41
5 All. Rudrabhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1503
5. Chandra Kishroe Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad & ors.,
(1999) 8 SCC 266

6. Cherukuri Mani Vs Chief Secretary, Govt of A.P.
& ors, (2015) 13 SCC 722

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.)

1.) Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh and
Ms. Arunima Shukla, learned Counsels for
the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh,
learned Chief Standing Counsel and Mr.
Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2.) Since, the pure legal question is
involved, hence the matter is decided at
admission stage.

3.) Under challenge is the order
dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Deputy
Director of Education (Secondary), 9th
Region, Ayodhya whereby the matter for
grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner
is remitted back.

4.) The contention of Counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher
on ad-hoc basis on 09.08.1995 and he joined
thereafter on 14.08.1995 and later on, when
the financial concurrence was not granted by
the District Inspector of Schools, a writ
petition bearing no. 839 (S/S) of 1997 was
preferred before this Court, whereby, he
was granted salary by an interim order. He
further submitted that once the provision
under Section 33G of the U.P. Act No. 5 of
1982 was promulgated, the petitioner was
considered
and
his
services
were
regularized vide order dated 08.06.2017
and thereafter, he was also granted the
other benefits. He also added that the
petitioner
attained
the
age
of
superannuation after completing 62 years
of age on 30.04.2023.
5.) Further contention of Counsel
for the petitioner is that once the matter was
preferred before the Deputy Director of
Education
(Secondary),
9th
Region,
Ayodhya for payment of pension, the same
was relegated back, while observing that
since
the
Government
Order
dated
12.12.2023 came into effect which says that
the qualifying service for grant of pension
shall be counted from the date of substantive
appointment, thus, the petitioner is not
entitled for pension. Adding his argument,
he submits that in fact, the petitioner could
be treated retired while attaining the age of
superannuation while completing 62 years
of age on 30.04.2023 as provided under
Regulation 21 of the Regulations made
under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1921'),
and therefore, the date of retirement is much
prior than the date of issuance of the
Government order, hence, the Government
order dated 12.12.2023 will not apply so far
as the case of the present petitioner is
concerned.

6.) In support of his contention, he
has placed reliance on judgment & order
dated 25.04.2024 passed in Writ A 2202 of
2024 and has referred Paragraph 19 to 21
which are quoted herein below:-

".......(19.) It is undisputed fact that
the services of the petitioner was regularised
on 30th March 2019 that is much prior than
the Government order dated 12th December
2023, is issued, when the Clause 4 of the
Pension Rules was not in existence.
(20.) The legal principal culled out
is that the vested rights cannot be taken
away by way of amendment giving the effect
retrospectively. Further, if any statute do not
provide any specific terms regarding the
provision to be applicable retrospectively,
the same shall be applicable prospectively.
1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(21.) It has been the view of the Apex
Court consistently, including the judgment
and order rendered in Chairman Railway
Board
versus
C.R.
Rangadhamaiah
reported in AIR (SC) 1997 0 3828
(Constitutional Bench) and in case of
Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural
Development Bank Ltd versus Registrar,
Cooperative Societies reported in AIR (SC)
2022 0 1349 that it would have unjust and
unreasonable to give any effect to any
statute retrospectively unless any claim or
right is vested by way of legislation. Further,
recently in case of Assistant Excise
Commissioner,
Kottayan
&
Ors.
Vs.
Estgappan Cherian & Anr. reported in
2021(10) SCC 210, it has been held that
there is a profusion of judicial authority and
the proposition that a rule of law cannot be
constituted as retrospective unless it
expresses a clear or manifest intention to the
contrary."

7.) Referring the aforesaid, he
submits that the controversy has been put to
rest and it has been held that if the institute
does not envisage the provision regarding
retrospective effect, applying it contrary,
amounts to legislate such provisions which
is not permissible under the law.

8.) Concluding his arguments, he
submits that in fact the Deputy Director of
Education
(Secondary),
9th
Region,
Ayodhya, under the impression that the
petitioner was retired after completing the
benefit of academic session on 31.03.2024
remitted back the matter, while observing
that the Government order dated 12.12.2023
came into effect and he is not entitled for
salary, though the same is incorrect and thus
submission is that the order date 21.03.2024
may be quashed and Deputy Director of
Education
(Secondary),
9th
Region,
Ayodhya may be directed to decide the
matter afresh.

9.) On the other hand, Counsel
appearing for the State has refuted the
contentions above said on the ground that
there is nothing in the order dated
21.03.2024
which
goes
against
the
petitioner. He added that so far as the issue
with respect to the application of the
Government order dated 12.12.2023 is
concerned, that has already been settled and
since the petitioner is retired on 21.03.2024,
therefore, the Government order dated
12.12.2023 would apply in case of the
petitioner. Thus submission is that the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

10.)

Considering
upon
the
submissions advanced by learned Counsels
for the parties and after perusal of records, it
transpires that the controversy arose, when
the
Deputy
Director
of
Education
(Secondary), 9th Region, Ayodhya passed
an order on 21.03.2024 whereby observing
about
the
Government
order
dated
12.12.2023 and remitted back the matter
while not granting the benefit of pension
which amounts to denial of the same.

11.) While examining the matter in
facts and law, it emerges that Rule 19(b) of
Uttar Pradesh State Educational Institution
Employees Contributory Provident FundEnsurance Pension Rules introduced vide
Government Order dated 17th of December
1965, effected from 1st October 1964,
provides provision regarding count of
qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
Rule 19 (b) is extracted as under:-

"Continuous,
temporary
or
officiating
service
followed
without
interruption by confirmation in the same or
5 All. Rudrabhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1505
another post shall also count as qualifying
service."

The aforesaid provision is amended
vide order dated 12th of December 2023,
which is quoted herein under:-

"(1)लाभत्रयी योजना ननयमावली
टदनाांक 01-अक्िूबर1964, शासनादेश टदनाांक
17.12.1965, शासनादेश सांख्या-531/पन्रह-83004(2)/1974 टदनाांक 31, माचग 1978
प्रख्यावपत/प्रभावी होने के फलस्वरूप लाभत्रयी
योजना के शासनादेश टदनाांक-17 टदसम्बर,
1965, का अध्याय तीन ववलोवपत ककया जाता
है l

(2) टदनाांक-31.03.2024 के बाद
ननयुजक्त सहायता प्राप्त लशक्षण/प्रलशक्षण
सांस्थाओां के लशक्षक/कमगचारी अननवायग जीवन
बीमा योजना से आच्छाटदत नहीां माने जायेंर्े
l

(3) लाभत्रयी पेंशन ननयमावली
1965 के अध्याय पाांच, ननयम 17 वतगमान उप
ननयम-4 के पश्चात नया उप ननयम-05
बढ़ाया जाता है, अथागत (5), यह ननयमावली
उत्तर प्रदेश सहायता प्राप्त लशक्षा सांस्थाओां के
सांबांि में पेंशन स्थापन सेवाओां और पदों पर
चाहे वे अस्थाई हों या स्थाई हों, 01 अप्रैल
2005 को या उसके पश्चात प्रवेश करने वाले
कमगचाररयों पर लार्ू नहीां होर्ी l यह आदेश
टदनाांक 01.04.2005 से प्रभावी माना जायेर्ा l

(4) लाभत्रयी पेंशन ननयमावली
1965 के अध्याय-पाांच (पेंशन) के बबन्दु
सांख्या-19 (ख) में परांतुक के रूप में प्रस्ताववत
व्यवस्था "ऐसे लशक्षक जो तदथग अल्पकाललक
ररक्त पद पर l ननयुजक्त प्राप्त करके उत्तर
प्रदेश माध्यलमक लशक्षा सेवा चयन बोर्ग
अधिननयम 1982 की िारा-33 छ के अन्तर्गत
ववननयलमत हुए हैं, उनकी सेवा मौललक
ननयुजक्त की नतधथ 22 माचग 2016 से ही
अहगकारी सेवा के रूप में धर्नी जायेर्ी l"

12.) The provisions of the order
dated 12th of December 2023 came into
effect, though, without retrospective effect
but the authorities assuming that the same is
applicable from the retrospective effect but
passed the order while observing that the
qualifying service would be counted from
the date of substantive appointment and so
far as the case of the present petitioner is
concerned, his services were regularised
with effect from 22nd of March 2016, and,
therefore, he was otherwise denied for
pensionary benefits.

13.) In an identical circumstances,
this issue has been dealt with in Special
Appeal (Defective) No. 976 of 2023 as well
as in Writ-A No. 2202 of 2024, vide
judgements and orders dated 24.1.2024 and
25.4.2024 respectively, wherein, it has been
held that 'if an statute does not envisage the
provision regarding retrospective effect,
applying it contrary, would amount to
legislate such provisions, which is not
permissible under the law, and it has
categorically been held that the provision
would be applicable with effect from 12th of
December 2023, i.e., the date of issuance of
the order.

14.) So far as the case of the present
petitioner is concerned, he would have
1506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
retired
after
attaining
the
age
of
superannuation on 30th of April 2023, i.e.,
62 years of age though fact remains that he
was accorded the benefit of academic
session and was retired on 31st of March
2024.

15.) Now, the question crop up,
whether for the purposes of grant of
pensionary dues, including the pension, the
age of superannuation would be counted as
62 years or it can be beyond the same, after
getting the benefit of academic session,
being retired subsequently?

16.) The Regulation 21 of Chapter
III of the Regulations made under the Act
1921 envisaged the provisions of age of
superannuation as 62 years of age.
Regulation 21 is extracted as under:-

"[21. आचायग, प्रिानाध्यापक, अध्यापकों
का अधिवषग वय 62 वषग होर्ा। फलस्वरूप 58 वषग की
अधिवषगता पर लमलने वाले सेवाननवृवत्तक लाभ अब 60
वषग की अधिवषगता आयु पर तथा 60 वषग की
अधिवषगता आयु पर लमलने वाले सेवाननवृवत्तक लाभ
62 वषग की अधिवषगता आयु पर अनुमन्य होर्ा। यटद
ककसी आचायग, प्रिानाध्यापक अथवा अध्यापक का
उपयुगक्त अधिवषग वय 2 अप्रैल और 30 माचग के मध्य
में ककसी नतधथ को पडता है तो उसे, उस दशा को छोड
कर जबकक वह स्वांय सेवा ववस्तरण न लेने हेतु
ललखखत सूचना अपने अधिवषग वय की नतधथ से 2 माह
पूवग दे दें. 31 माचग तक सेवा ववस्तरण स्वमेव प्रदान
ककया र्या समझा जायेर्ा, ताकक ग्रीष्टमावकाश के
उपरान्त जुलाई में प्रनतस्थानी की व्यवस्था हो सके।
इसके अनतररक्त सेवा ववस्तरण केवल उन्हीां ववलशष्टि
दशाओां में प्रदान ककया जा सकेर्ा जो राज्य सरकार
द्वारा ननिागररत की जाये। यटद ककसी ललवपक अथवा
चतुथग वर्ीय कमगचाररयों के अधिवषग वय की नतधथ
ककसी माह के मध्य ककसी नतधथ को पडती है तो उसका
सेवा ववस्तारण उस मास की अजन्तम नतधथ पर प्रदान
ककया र्या समझा जायेर्ा। ककन्तु यटद ककसी
कमगचारी की सेवाननवृवत्त की नतधथ ककसी माह पहली
तारीख को पडे तो उसे पूवगवती मास की अजन्तम नतधथ
को सेवाननवृवत्त कर टदया जायेर्ा।]"

17.) The aforesaid provision is very
clear in terms of the age of superannuation
with respect to teacher and headmaster, i.e.,
completion of 62 years of age and, therefore,
this Court is of the considered opinion that
any further continuation while granting the
benefit of academic session would not
change the age of superannuation as
provided under the Regulation. The very
purpose of granting benefit of academic
session is limited to the extent of paramount
interest of the students and, thus, the intent
of legislature is very clear so far as the date
of age of superannuation is concerned.

18.) The petitioner has attained the
age of superannuation on 30.4.2023, when
he completed 62 years of age, though he was
accorded the benefit of academic session,
hence he retired on 30.4.2023. Since the
petitioner attained the age of superannuation
on 30.4.2023, therefore, all the rights of
pensionary benefits etc. would accrue on
30.4.2023 itself.

19.) The decision taken by the
Deputy Director vide order dated 21.3.2024
while observing the provisions of order
dated 12.12.2023, thereby, remitting back
the matter while granting the pension to the
petitioner,
treating
the
substantive
appointment
of
the
petitioner
since
22.3.2016,
goes
against
the
settled
proposition of law rendered vide Judgment
and Order passed in Special Appeal
(Defective) No. 976 of 2023 as well as in
5 All. Rudrabhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1507
Writ-A No.2202 of 2024, which clearly
provide that the Government Order dated
12.12.2023 would not have retrospective
effect and shall apply from the date of
issuance.

20.) It is so long settled law in case
of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King-Emperor, 1936
SEC OnLine PC 41 rendered by the Privy
Council, wherein it is held that 'where a
power is given to do a certain thing in certain
way, the thing must be done in that way or
not at all' and the other methods of
performance are necessarily forbidden'. This
Court has also considered the judgment and
order rendered in the case of Chandra
Kishroe Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and
Others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 266,
wherein, the following principle is laid
down:-

".........17. It is a well-settled
salutary principle that if a statute provides
for a thing to be done in a particular
manner, then it has to be done in that
manner an di8n no other manner. (See with
advantage: Nazir Ahmad V. King Emperor
[(1935-36) 63 lA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253
(lI)] , Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P.
[AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098] , State
of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC
358 : (1964) l SCWR 57] .) An election
petition under the rules could only have
been presented in the open court up to 1605-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of the
Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6
(supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as
the case may be to save the period of
limitation.
That,
however,
was
not
done......."

21.) Further, in case of Cherukuri
Mani Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of
Andhra Pradesh and Ors, (2015) 13 SCC
722, it has been held by the Apex Court that
'where the law prescribed a thing to be done
in a particular manner, following a particular
procedure, it shall be done in the same
manner following the provisions of law,
without deviating from the prescribed
procedure'. So far as the present matter is
concerned, the age of superannuation has
been provided by way of promulgating
Regulation
21
of
Chapter
IIIrd
of
regulations made under the Act, 1921.
Therefore, no other inference or meaning
can be drawn so far as the age of
superannuation is concerned.

22.) The petitioner has admittedly
attained the age of superannuation on
30.4.2023, which in fact is the date of
superannuation/retirement
as
per
the
provision of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of
Regulations made under Act 1921 and,
therefore, the date of superannuation is
much prior to the issuance of the
Government Order dated 12.12.2023 and in
considered opinion of this Court, the right of
pensionary benefit of the petitioner would
accrue on the date of retirement, while
attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., on
30.4.2023.

23.) In this view of the aforesaid
submission and discussions, the writ petition
succeeds and the impugned order dated
21.03.2024 is hereby quashed.

24.) The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.

25.) Resultantly, matter is relegated
back to the Deputy Director of Education
(Secondary), 9th Region, Ayodhya to decide
the matter afresh, considering the judgment
and orders passed in Special Appeal
Defective No. 976 of 2023, as well as, Writ
A No. 2202 of 2024, for grant of pension to
the petitioner, within a period of eight
1508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
weeks, from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before him.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1508
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ-A No. 13460 of 2023

Om Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Mathur

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sri Ganesh Datt Mishra

(A) Service Law - Claim of Terminal dues -
The U.P. Cooperative Employees Service
Regulations, 1975 - The Right to Information
Act, 2005 - The Constitution of India - Article
300-A - right to property - leave encashment
cannot be taken away without any statutory
provision - Petitioner is entitled to leave
encashment dues upon resignation, as there
is no valid distinction between an employee
retiring, dying in harness, or resigning in
accordance with rules. (Para - 9)

Petitioner's claims for unpaid dues - gratuity, leave
encashment, and interest on delayed payments -
dues on account of medical leave - special pay
under the family planning scheme and other dues
in consonance with the 6th Pay Commission -
respondents delayed payment of gratuity without
justification, and now owe interest. (Para - 2,4)

HELD: - Court orders respondents to pay Leave
encashment dues. Interest on delayed gratuity
payment (6% p.a.). Interest on leave encashment
dues (6% p.a.). Total amount to be paid within 6
weeks. Court dismisses claims for medical leave,
special pay under family planning, and other dues,
finding no legal basis for these entitlements. (Para -
14,15)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Praveen Kumar Vs M.D., PCDF & ors., Service
Single No.18548 of 2016

2. St. of Jharkh. & Ors. Vs Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava & anr., (2013) 12 SCC 210

3. Arun Kumar Das Vs St. of U.P. through
Principal Secy., Dept. of Dairy Development &
anr., Service Bench No.994 of 2011

4. Ram Khelawan Shukla Vs M.D. Pradeshik
Cooperative Dairy Federation Lko. & anr. ,
Service Single No. - 22370 of 2021

5. M.D. Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation
Ltd. & anr. Vs Ram Khelawan Shukla, Special
Appeal Defective No.541 of 2021

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

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. G.D. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No. 4 and Mr.
Roopesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition
prays that a writ in the nature of mandamus
be
issued,
directing
the
Chairman,
Committee of Management/ Managing
Director, Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy
Federation Limited to pay the balance of
gratuity due to the petitioner, together with
interest on the entire gratuity paid with
delay, leave encashment dues, dues on
account of medical leave, special pay under
the family planning scheme and other dues
in
consonance
with
the
6th
Pay
Commission.

3. The petitioner says that it is not
in issue that the Project Director, the Project
Engineer, Assistant Project Engineer and