# Smt. Manorama Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 596
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-18
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 21366 of 2015
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-manorama-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43246
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Civil Services Regulation-Regulation 370
(i)-services rendered in work chargeestablishment-whether can be counted-as
qualifying period of services-for pension
purpose?-held-'No'-reasons discussed.
Held: Para-4
Undisputed fact, which is clear from the
prayer itself, is that the petitioner wants
that her work as work charge employee
should be counted towards eligibility period
of 10 years for the purpose of grant of
pension. This issue was considered in detail
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
in Special Appeal No. 23 of 2014, Jai
Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others,
decided on 9.1.2014
Case Law discussed:
Spl. Appeal No. 23 of 2014; Spl. Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 12648 of 2014

## Text

596
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District Mirzapur. The village has been
notified in the Gazette Notification dated
26th December, 2013 under sub-section
(2) of Section 4 of the Act. It is submitted
that
the
petitioners
have
filed
an
application for abatement of the suit under
sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act but
the court concerned has rejected the
petitioners' application on the ground that
unless some written order from the higher
authority is obtained the suits cannot be
abated.
5. Sub section (2) of Section 5 of the
Act reads under:
"(2) Upon the said publication of
notification under sub-section (2) of
Section
4,
the
following
further
consequences shall ensure in the area to
which the notification relates, namely:
(a)
every
proceeding
for
the
correction of records and every suit and
proceeding in respect of declaration of
rights or interest in any land lying in the
area, or for declaration or adjudication of
any other right in regard to which
proceedings can or ought to be taken
under this Act, pending before any Court
or authority whether of the first instance
or of appeal, reference or revision, shall,
on an order being passed in that behalf by
the Court or authority before whom such
suit or proceeding is pending stand
abated:
Provided that no such order shall be
passed without giving to the parties notice
by post or in any other manner and after
giving them an opportunity of being
heard.
(b) such abatement shall be without
prejudice to the rights of the persons
affected to agitate the right or interest
indispute in the said suits or proceedings
before the appropriate consolidation
authorities under and in accordance with
the provisions of this act and the rules
made thereunder."
6. In view of the provisions
contained under sub-section (2) of Section
5 of the Act all the proceeding regarding
declaration of right etc. shall stand abated
after notificaiton under sub-section (2) of
Section 4 of the Act after notice to the
parties. The Sub Divisional Officer was
exercising power of the court while
deciding the petitioners' application. For
deciding the cases pending before the
court the direction of the authorities is not
necessary. The cases have to be decided
on the basis of the provisions contained
under the Statute for such purpose. There
is no scope of interference of the
authorities in the judicial functions of the
court. The Sub Divisional Officer has
mislead himself by observing that unless a
direction of the higher authority is given
the cases cannot be abated. The view
taken by the Sub Divisional Officer is
patently illegal and arbitrary. The Sub
Divisional Officer is directed to pass a
fresh order on the petitioners' application
ignoring the earlier order passed by him
on 11.3.2015 on the basis of the statutory
provisions as mentioned herein above and
the arguments advanced by the counsel
for the parties.
7.

With
the
aforesaid
observation/direction this writ petition is
disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2015
BEFORE
2 All] Smt. Manorama Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
597
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 21366 of 2015
Smt. Manorama Mishra
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sheo Ram Singh, Sri Janardan Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Civil Services Regulation-Regulation 370
(i)-services rendered in work chargeestablishment-whether can be counted-as
qualifying period of services-for pension
purpose?-held-'No'-reasons discussed.
Held: Para-4
Undisputed fact, which is clear from the
prayer itself, is that the petitioner wants
that her work as work charge employee
should be counted towards eligibility period
of 10 years for the purpose of grant of
pension. This issue was considered in detail
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
in Special Appeal No. 23 of 2014, Jai
Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others,
decided on 9.1.2014
Case Law discussed:
Spl. Appeal No. 23 of 2014; Spl. Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 12648 of 2014
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel.
2. The petitioner was engaged as a daily
wager muster roll employee in work charge
establishment on 19.11.1984 where she
continued to work till 28.12.1993. The
services of the petitioner were orally
terminated on 28.12.1993 against which she
raised an industrial dispute which was allowed
by an award dated 27.3.1997 passed by the
Labour Court, Varanasi. A writ petition being
Writ Petition No. 3473 of 1999 was filed by
the State authorities, which was ultimately
dismissed. By an order dated 26.12.2001 the
petitioner was reinstated on her post as work
charge employee. Subsequently, by an office
order dated 29.10.2011 issued by the
respondent
no.
2
the
petitioner
was
regularized as Class IV employee "Beldar".
By an order of posting dated 1.11.2011 she
was granted pay scale of Rs. 5,200 - 20,200/-,
Pay Grade of Rs. 1800/- on the post of regular
Beldar. She has retired on 31.1.2015.
3.
The petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3
to sanction and pay the regular pension
alongwith entire post retiral dues (counting the
services
rendered
in
work
charge
establishment towards the continuous service)
as applicable to the regular post of Beldar in
the light of the judgment rendered by this
Court in Special Appeal No. 445 of 2011 and
Writ Petition A - No. 59622 of 2014.
4. Undisputed fact, which is clear from
the prayer itself, is that the petitioner wants
that her work as work charge employee
should be counted towards eligibility period
of 10 years for the purpose of grant of
pension. This issue was considered in detail
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
in Special Appeal No. 23 of 2014, Jai
Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided
on 9.1.2014 and it was held by the Hon'ble
Division Bench as under:
"It, therefore, follows from the
aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court
that
the
work
charged
employees
constitute a distinct class and they cannot
be equated with regular employees and
that the work charged employees are not
entitled to the service benefits which are
598
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
admissible to regular employees under
the relevant rules.
We are conscious that in Special
Appeal Defective No.842 of 2013 (State of
U.P. & Ors. Vs. Panchu) that was decided
on 2 December 2013, a Division Bench, after
taking notice of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Narata Singh (supra), observed that
the rationale which weighed with the
Supreme Court should also govern the
provisions of the Civil Service Regulations,
but what we find from a perusal of the
aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench is
that the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Jagjiwan Ram (supra), Jaswant Singh
(supra) and Kunji Raman (supra) as also the
Full Bench judgment of this Court in Pavan
Kumar Yadav (supra) had not been placed
before the Court. These decisions of the
Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this
Court leave no manner of doubt that in view
of the material difference between an
employee working in a work charged
establishment and an employee working in a
regular establishment, the service rendered
in a work charged establishment cannot be
clubbed
with
service
in
a
regular
establishment unless there is a specific
provision to that effect in the relevant
Statutes. Article 370(ii) of the Civil Service
Regulations specifically, on the contrary,
excludes the period of service rendered in a
work charged establishment for the purposes
of payment of pension and we have in the
earlier part of this judgment held that the
decision of the Supreme Court in Narata
Singh (supra), which relates to Rule 3.17(i)
of the Punjab Electricity Rules, does not
advance the case of the appellant. In this
view of the matter, the appellant is not
justified in contending that the period of
service rendered from 1 October 1982 to 5
January 1996 as a work charged employee
should be added for the purpose of
computing the qualifying service for payment
of pension."
5.
The aforesaid judgment was
challenged by the appellant in Special Leave
to Appeal (C) No. 12648 of 2014, Jai Prakash
Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was
dismissed on 5.9.2014 by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and the following order was passed:
"There is nothing on the record to
suggest that any Rule or Scheme framed
by the State to count the work-charge
period for the purpose of pension in the
regular establishment. In absence of any
such Rule or Scheme, we find no merit to
interfere with the impugned judgment.
The
special
leave
petition
is
dismissed."
6. In view of the aforesaid, the rulings
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the case rendered in Special
Appeal No. 445 of 2011, Bhuneshwar Rai
Vs. State of U.P. and others is of no help.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
at this stage prays that the matter relating
to payment of any other retiral dues which
is still pending be directed to be decided
within a time bound period.
8.
Accordingly, it is provided that in
case any other retiral benefits are still
pending to be paid to the petitioner, the same
shall be paid, in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
9.

With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, this writ petition
stands dismissed. No costs.
--------
2 All] Arvind Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
599
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23485 of
2014
Arvind Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, Sri Chandan
Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-21-Opening
History
sheet-continuing
surveillancewithout
notice
or
opportunity-mere
pendency of one criminal case-held-contrary
to provisions of regulation 228 of Police
regulation-in absence of allegations of
abatement-order-not sustainable-quashed.
Held: Para-18
The impugned order except for a solitary
sentence
that
merely
because
the
petitioner has been acquitted, the same
cannot be a ground to close the history
sheet, we find no other valid reason given
for the same. There is no indication that
the petitioner is a habitual offender and
that he forms a class of criminals as
defined in Class- A of Regulation 228. It is
not the case of the respondents that the
petitioner is a criminal of Class-B of
Regulation 228 nor is there any such
finding to that effect. The impugned order,
therefore, is vitiated on this ground as it
does not objectively consider the case of
the petitioner in terms of the regulations
as directed by the High Court in the
judgment dated 3.10.2012.
Case Law discussed:
1992 (Suppl) (2) SCC page 84; AIR 1963 SC
1295; AIR 1975 SC page 1378; AIR 1981 SC
page 760.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1.
This petition has been filed for
quashing of the impugned order dated
3.2.2014
passed
by
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi refusing
to close the history sheet of the petitioner on
certain grounds. The second prayer made is
for quashing of the order dated 24.7.2010
passed by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi, whereby
a representation of the petitioner for closing
the history sheet of the petitioner has been
rejected.
2. At the very outset, it may be
mentioned that a report was obtained from
Police Station Cantt, Varanasi about the
pendency of criminal cases against the
petitioner that has resulted in the opening
of the history sheet against him under the
U.P. Police Regulations. The extract of
the said Regulations under Chapter XX
have been filed along with the writ
petition as Annexure 19. The history sheet
of the petitioner is numbered as 75-A.
According
to
Regulation
223,
Registration and Surveillance of Bad
Characters known as a crime note book
shall be kept at every police station
containing the information of the crime
and criminals referred to therein. The
entries have to be made in five parts and
Part (V) has to be maintained in
accordance
with
the
instructions
contained in paragraph 228 of the U.P.
Police Regulations. This proceeds to
describe the classification of history
sheets, namely, Class-A and Class-B
history sheets. Class-A history sheet is for
dacoits, burglars, cattle thieves, railway-