# Smt. Vibha Pandey v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 638
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-15
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 5196 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vibha-pandey-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-50338
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Assessment - Punishment -
The Uttar Pradesh Government Servants
(Disposal of Representation Against Adverse
Annual Confidential Reports and Allied
Matters) Rules, 1995 - Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
There is hardly any ground taken up by the
petitioner for challenging the assessment as
made by the Reporting Authority, Reviewing
Authority as well as Accepting Authority
who is the competent authority as defined
under the 1995 Rules. (Para 9)

The authorities relied upon by the petitioner are
entirely on the different footings and are related
to the disciplinary proceedings wherein the
punishment has been awarded and the same
was not mentioned in the 1991 Rules and the
same has been held as illegal. (Para 10)

Whereas the present case is not at all w.r.t. any
punishment, it is only assessment of conduct,
6 All. Smt. Vibha Pandey Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
639
behaviour and activities as carried out by the
petitioner during that continuation of the
currency period of year for which she has been
assessed and reported for withholding the
integrity i.e. bad in nature and the same was
communicated well within time so that the
petitioner may exercise the rights available
under the 1995 Rules. (Para 8, 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

## Text

638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
financial status and the financial status of
the married daughter.

21. In such above view of the matter,
therefore, the order passed by the District
Inspector of Schools dated 30.11.2022
impugned in this petition is hereby
quashed.

22. The matter is remitted to the
District Inspector of School only for the
limited purpose to examine the financial
status of the petitioner and that of her
husband. If it is found that the petitioner's
husband is having good financial status in
terms of landed property or otherwise
which can be said to be sufficient enough
for the survival of the family, the petitioner
may
not
be
offered
compassionate
appointment as a rule because it is always
to be seen whether even after a lapse of
considerably long period like seven years
of the death of earning member as in this
case, a family still needs service for
survival or does the family still need
financial help to meet any crisis more
especially in the circumstances when the
widow may be receiving pension and all
the daughters including the petitioner were
married prior to the death of the employee.

23. It is made clear that upon above
parameters, if petitioner stands successful,
she
will
be
offered
compassionate
appointment and will not be denied same
for any technicality.

24. An appropriate decision shall be
taken in the light of observations made
herein above within a period of two months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.

25. In this view of the matter,
petitioner would also be required to
disclose the entire property of her husband
and also her property that she owns.

26. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, this petition stands disposed
of.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 638
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 5196 of 2023

Smt. Vibha Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Assessment - Punishment -
The Uttar Pradesh Government Servants
(Disposal of Representation Against Adverse
Annual Confidential Reports and Allied
Matters) Rules, 1995 - Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
There is hardly any ground taken up by the
petitioner for challenging the assessment as
made by the Reporting Authority, Reviewing
Authority as well as Accepting Authority
who is the competent authority as defined
under the 1995 Rules. (Para 9)

The authorities relied upon by the petitioner are
entirely on the different footings and are related
to the disciplinary proceedings wherein the
punishment has been awarded and the same
was not mentioned in the 1991 Rules and the
same has been held as illegal. (Para 10)

Whereas the present case is not at all w.r.t. any
punishment, it is only assessment of conduct,
6 All. Smt. Vibha Pandey Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
639
behaviour and activities as carried out by the
petitioner during that continuation of the
currency period of year for which she has been
assessed and reported for withholding the
integrity i.e. bad in nature and the same was
communicated well within time so that the
petitioner may exercise the rights available
under the 1995 Rules. (Para 8, 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Narendra Singh Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ A No. 25665 of 2012, decided on
23.05.2012 (Para 7, 11)

2. Satya Deo Sharma Vs St. of U.P., Service
Single No.1315 of 2023, decided on 02.04.2013
(Para 7, 11)

3. Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Civil Appeal
No. 3550 of 2012, decided on 13.04.2012 (Para
7, 11)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
26.10.2022 & 24.06.2022, passed by The
Additional Director General of Police and
The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Gorakhpur
Range,
Gorakhpur,
District
Gorakhpur, respectively. Also, prays for
direction to Respondent authorities to
delete punishment of withholding the
integrity into service records of the
Petition
and
further
consider
for
promotion if any proposed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Satyendra
Kumar
Tripathi,
learned
Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed
seeking the following relief:-

"I. Issue, a writ, or direction in the
nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned
order dated 26.10.2022 & 24.06.2022
passed by the Respondent No.2 & 3
respectively,
The
Additional
Director
General of Police, Gorakhpur Range,
Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur & The
Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Gorakhpur Range, Gorakhpur, District
Gorakhpur, (Annexure -3 & 5 to the Writ
Petition)

II. Issue, a writ, order or direction, in
the nature of mandamus, directing the
Respondent
authorities
to
delete
punishment of withholding the integrity into
service records of the Petition and further
consider for promotion if any proposed."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
entry of withholding the integrity has been
awarded in the Annual Confidential Report
of the petitioner by the Reporting Authority
vide order dated 20.01.2021 while the
petitioner was rendering her services under
the capacity of Inspector in Kushi Nagar
and the same has been communicated well
within time as prescribed under the 1995
Rules1.

4. Being aggrieved with the entry
dated 20.01.2021, the petitioner approached
the Reviewing Authority i.e. respondent
no.3 vide representation dated 22.10.2021
that was beyond the limitation of 45 days
as prescribed under the rules, but the same
has been duly considered by way of
detailed discussion of the grounds as
elaborated by the petitioner and dismissed
the same vide order dated 24.06.2022.

5. After availing the statutory remedy
prescribed under the Rule 4 of the 1995
Rules, the petitioner preferred a detailed
revision
before
Accepting/Competent
Authority on dated 16.09.2022.

6. The order dated 20.01.2021 passed
by Reporting Officer as well as order dated
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24.06.2022 passed by Reviewing Authority
has
been
upheld
by
the
Accepting/Competent
Authority
i.e.
respondent
no.2
vide
order
dated
26.10.2022 by way of rejecting the entire
claim as set out by the petitioner for
showing her bonafide over the assessment
as drawn by the Reporting Authority.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
framed his case on the basis that the
punishment which has not been mentioned
under the 1991 Rules 2, the same cannot be
imposed by any of the authority who is
competent under the rules against any
employee who is rendering his services in
the Department of U.P. Police as a
Subordinate Officer. For substantiating his
arguments,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner relied upon the judgment passed
by a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Narendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
and others3, judgment of a Division Bench
of this High Court at Lucknow Bench in
Satya Deo Sharma Vs. State of U.P.4 and
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others5.

8. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as
made in the petition by way of elaborating
his arguments on the basis that the entry as
reported against the petitioner is different to
the punishment as mentioned under the
1991 Rules, the punishment as prescribed
in the 1991 Rules can only be imposed
after adopting the procedure as defined
under the statutory provisions specifically
mentioned under the 1991 Rules which is
applicable in the case of the petitioner but
the matter put under challenge by way of
filing the instant petition is not the case of
punishment, whereas it is the case of entry
in the ACR of the petitioner, which has
been endorsed by the Reporting Officer
after examining the activities, conduct and
behaviour of the petitioner in shape of
withholding the integrity and assessed the
entry of that particular year as bad and
communicated the same well within time
so that the petitioner may exercise the
rights available under the 1995 Rules.

9. Learned Standing Counsel also
submitted that there is hardly any ground
taken up by the petitioner for challenging
the assessment as made by the Reporting
Authority, Reviewing Authority as well as
Accepting Authority who is the competent
authority as defined under the 1995 Rules.

10. By bare perusal of the orders
which impugned the present petition along
with the judgments cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is crystal
clearly proved that the pronouncement of
this Court as well by Hon'ble the Apex
Court as relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioner are entirely on the different
footings which is purely the matter which
has been denied in the judgment is related
to the disciplinary proceedings wherein the
punishment has been awarded and the same
was not mentioned in the 1991 Rules and
the same has been held as illegal.

11. Whereas the matter pertains to the
present petition is not at all with regard to
any punishment, it is only assessment of
conduct, behaviour and activities as carried
out
by
the
petitioner
during
that
continuation of the currency period of year
for which she has been assessed and
reported for withholding the integrity i.e.
bad in nature, and as such, there is hardly
any bearings of the cases mentioned by
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
same is having no application in the instant
matter.
6 All. Chaman Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
641

12. The arguments as raised by
learned Standing Counsel seems to be
forceful, having agreement with the same,
the instant petition is hereby dismissed.

13. However, it is made clear that the
petitioner is at liberty to approach the
appropriate forum of law, if so desires.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 641
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-A No. 19575 of 2022

Chaman Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jamwant Maurya

A. Service Law - Pension - Retirement
Benefits - Uttar Pradesh Nagar Panchayat
Non
Centralized
Services
Retirement
Benefits
Regulations,
1992
-
U.P.
Qualifying
Service
for
Pension
and
Validation Act, 2021 - 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. (Para 8)

Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules,
1961 was read down to 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. (Para 5)

The word 'post' used in S.2 of the Act of 2021
was diluted to save it from arbitrariness and
hence, the word 'post', be it temporary or
permanent,
was
read
down
as
'services
rendered by a government employee, be it of
temporary or permanent nature'. (Para 8)

The present Regulations of 1992 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 wager 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 daily wage
services. (Para 9)

Thus, the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 is
set aside and respondents are directed to
ensure regular payment of pensionary and other
benefits to the petitioner under the Regulations
of 1992, treating their entire service to be
performed as regular employee of the Nagar
Panchayat within a period of three months.
However, back pension shall be paid for the last
three years only. (Para 10, 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2019) 10
SCC 516 (Para 5)

2. Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Judgment dated 17.02.2023, Writ-A No. 8968 of
2022 (Para 8)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
28.08.2020,
whereby
the
respondent
authority
has
refused
to
grant
him
pension and other benefits on retirement
which he claims to be entitled.