# State of U.P. & Ors v. Chandra Mohan Yadav

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 389
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-06
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 607 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-chandra-mohan-yadav-53384
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Palika (Centralized)
Services Rules, 1966 - Rules 21 & 21-A(1)
- Pension, fixation thereof - Claim to
count the past services rendered before
their
regularization
was
made
-
Permissibility - Delay was caused by St. in
regularization - Effect - Held, by virtue of
Rule 21-A(1), their services were liable to
be considered for regularisation soon after
the introduction of Rule 21-A(1) in the
Rules, 1966. Merely because the St. did
not
consider
their
services
for
regularisation for sufficiently long would
not be a valid ground to allow the St. to
contend now that since their entry into
service is after 1.4.2005, therefore, they
would not be entitled to the benefit under
the Old Pension Scheme - Any delay
occasioned by the St. in consideration of
their claim for regularisation cannot be a
ground to deny benefit of pension to the
writ petitioners. (Para 16 and 23)
Special Appeal disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav
389
some allegations, the services of an
employee may not be dispensed with
without following the due procedure of
law, therefore, the impugned punishment
orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law and are liable to be quashed.

21. The petitioner is around 70
years at the moment and he had attained the
age of superannuation prior to ten years.
Learned counsel for opposite parties no.4
and 5 is unable to point out any Rule which
empowers the opposite parties to proceed
against the petitioner after retirement.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate to
remit the matter for fresh enquiry in view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagirathi
Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and
others, (1999) 3 SCC 666 and Dev Prakash
Tewari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative
Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and
others, (2014) 7 SCC 260.

22. Writ petition is accordingly
allowed and a Writ in the nature of
Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned
orders dated 07.09.2001 and 31.03.2005
passed by the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat.
Dostpur, District Sultanpur, contained in
Annexure Nos.10-A and 10-B to the writ
petition. The petitioner is entitled for 30%
back
wages
and
retiral
benefits
as
permissible in law.

23. Since the petitioner has been
litigating from 2005 and has retired, it
would be expedient in the interest of justice
to direct the opposite parties to complete
the exercise for payment of 30% back
wages and retiral benefits to the petitioner,
positively, within a period of three months
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before the authority concerned.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 389
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Special Appeal No. 607 of 2024
With
Other connected cases

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Chandra Mohan Yadav ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Ankit Gaur, Kunal Ravi Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Bhagwan Dutt Pandey

A. Service Law - UP Palika (Centralized)
Services Rules, 1966 - Rules 21 & 21-A(1)
- Pension, fixation thereof - Claim to
count the past services rendered before
their
regularization
was
made
-
Permissibility - Delay was caused by St. in
regularization - Effect - Held, by virtue of
Rule 21-A(1), their services were liable to
be considered for regularisation soon after
the introduction of Rule 21-A(1) in the
Rules, 1966. Merely because the St. did
not
consider
their
services
for
regularisation for sufficiently long would
not be a valid ground to allow the St. to
contend now that since their entry into
service is after 1.4.2005, therefore, they
would not be entitled to the benefit under
the Old Pension Scheme - Any delay
occasioned by the St. in consideration of
their claim for regularisation cannot be a
ground to deny benefit of pension to the
writ petitioners. (Para 16 and 23)
Special Appeal disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; (2019) 10
SCC 516
2. Uday Pratap Thakur & anr. Vs St. of Bihar &
ors.; 2023 (0) Supreme (SC 429)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.)

1.
These
appeals
arise
out
of
judgments delivered by the learned Single
Judge in a batch of writ petitions holding
the respondents/writ petitioners entitled to
retiral benefits under the Uttar Pradesh
Palika (Centralised) Service Retirement
Benefits Rules of 1981 by counting their
past
services
rendered
before
their
regularization also for the purpose of fixing
their
pension.
For
coming
to
such
conclusion, the learned Single Judge has
placed reliance upon the judgment in Prem
Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, (2019)
10 SCC 516 as well as the decision in
Uday Pratap Thakur and another vs.
State of Bihar and others, 2023 (0)
Supreme (SC 429).

2. Controversy raised in all the
matters are more or less similar. We have
accordingly taken the case of Shri Chandra
Mohan Yadav as a leading case. Shri
Yadav was appointed as Junior Engineer
(Civil) in Nagar Nigam on contract basis in
the year 1987. He was subsequently given
ad
hoc
appointment
pursuant
to
a
Government Order dated 7.3.1995. His
services came to be regularised on
26.2.2008. He, thereafter, retired from
service on 31.7.2022. Pensionery benefits,
however, were not extended to the Shri
Yadav, on account of which he approached
this Court by filing Writ A No. 6344 of
2023 which has been allowed by the
learned Single Judge vide judgment and
order dated 30.5.2023.

3. Nagar Nigam is a statutory body
created under the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. Service
conditions of the persons appointed in such
local body are governed by the U.P. Palika
(Centralized)
Services
Rules,
1966
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1966').
Rule 21 of Rules, 1966, provides for
appointment
on
the
occurrence
of
substantive vacancies from the list prepared
under Rule 19 and, by promotion, in
accordance with Rule 20. Rule 19 regulates
direct recruitment whereas Rule 20 relates
to promotion. Rule 31 of Rules, 1966,
contemplates
ad
hoc
and
temporary
officiating appointments which reads as
under :

"31. Ad hoc and temporary
officiating appointments-Notwithstanding
anything contained in Rule 21 the State
Government may also make ad hoc
appointments or temporary officiating
arrangements for the posts falling vacant
substantivelv or temporarily."

4. A provision for regularisation of
ad hoc appointments was introduced in
Rules, 1966 by way of notification dated
10.04.2003, namely, Rule 21-A. Rule 21A(1) is relevant for the present purposes
and is reproduced hereinafter :

"21-A. Regularisation of Ad-hoc
appointments-(1) Any person who-(i) was
directly appointed on ad-hoc basis before
June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service
as such on date of commencement of these
rules:

(ii)
possessed
requisite
qualifications prescribed under Rule 12 for
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav
391
regular appointment at the time of such adhoc appointment, and

(iii) has completed or as the case
may be, after he has completed three years
continuous service, shall be considered for
appointment in permanent or temporary
vacancy as may be available on the basis of
his service record and suitability before
any regular appointment is made in such
vacancy in accordance with the provisions
contained in these rules."

5. In the case of Shri Yadav as well
as in all other matters, the writ petitioners
were initially appointed on temporary
basis. Having worked as such for several
years,
they
were
granted
ad
hoc
appointment in the year 1995. The ad hoc
appointment was offered to all the writ
petitioners pursuant to a Government Order
issued by the State on 7.3.1995. The
condition for issuing ad hoc appointment
was that all persons had worked three or
more years for 240 days prior to 1.10.1994
and were in service on 7.3.1995. Such
persons otherwise were required to possess
requisite qualifications for the post. Rules,
1966,
were
amended
on
10.4.2003
providing for regularisation of ad hoc
appointments.
The
condition
for
regularisation was that such person was
required to have been appointed on ad hoc
basis on or before 30.06.1998 and was
continuing in service on the date of
commencement of these Rules; possess
requisite
qualifications
prescribed
for
regular appointment at the time of ad hoc
appointment; and has completed three years
of continuous service. The services of such
ad hoc appointees were required to be
considered for regularisation before any
regular appointment could be made in
accordance with the provisions contained in
these Rules.

6. It is admitted that all the
respondents were entitled to be regularised
in service on the date when the provision
itself was introduced i.e. on 10.4.2003.

7. We may also note that some of
the persons, who had completed more than
three years of service prior to 1994 and
were entitled to be appointed on ad hoc
basis,
have
been
offered
ad
hoc
appointments subsequently with effect
from 7.3.1995. It is, therefore, clear that all
the writ petitioners were entitled to be
regularised
under
Rule
21-A(1)
on
10.4.2003.

8. It is undisputed that the writ
petitioners have however been regularised
on different dates after 1.4.2005. No
reasonable explanation has been put forth
by the State as to why their claim for
regularisation has not been considered
under Rule 21-A (1) either on 10.4.2003 or
soon thereafter.

9. The language employed in Rule
21-A(1)(iii) clearly mandates that such
consideration for regularisation must take
place before any regular appointment is
made against such vacancy. Though there
are no specific pleadings in that regard, yet
we are informed that regular appointments
have been made in 2004-05 etc.

10. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Additional Advocate General, along with
Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Addl.
Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Ankit
Gaur, learned Standing Counsel, has
challenged the judgment of learned Single
Judge primarily on the ground that since
they (writ petitioners) were regularised in
service after 1.4.2005, by when New
Pension Scheme was introduced, as such
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the grant of benefit of the Old Pension
Scheme is impermissible.

11. It is also argued that the
previous services rendered on ad hoc basis
ought not to have been counted for
extending
the
Old
Pension
Scheme,
inasmuch as the date of entry into the
service would be the date of substantive
appointment or on the date when the
services of the writ petitioners were
regularised.

12. Sri Bhagwan Dutt Pandey and
Sri Ram Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the respondents/writ petitioners argue that
the State acted arbitrarily in not considering
the
claim
of
writ
petitioners
for
regularisation under Rules 21-A(1) with
effect from 10.4.2003 and merely for any
delay occasioned on the part of the State in
not considering the writ petitioners for
regularisation could not be victimised.
Their right to be paid pension could not
have been denied for any act of laches
attributed to the State.

13. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and carefully perused the
materials on record. The fact as have been
noticed above are not in dispute. Rules of
1966 defines 'Member of Services' under
Rule 2(xi) in following terms:

"Member of the services means a
person absorbed against or appointed to a
post in the cadre of the Centralized Service
under the rules''

14.
Rule
2(xvii)
defines
'Substantive Appointment' in following
terms :

"Substantive Appointment means
an appointment, not being an ad hoc
appointment, made after selection in
accordance with these rules.''

15. A conjoint reading of the above
provisions clearly indicate that substantive
appointment of an employee would be
treated to have been granted to him on the
date of his entry into the service. Rule 21A(1) provides for regularisation and once a
person
is
regularised
thereunder,
he
becomes a Member of Services. In such
circumstances, we find substance in the
argument of Sri M.C. Chaturvedi that date
of entry into service for the purposes of
payment of pension to the writ petitioners
would be the date of their regularisation.

16. There is, however, another
aspect which may not be lost sight of. All
the writ petitioners were appointed initially
on temporary basis in late 1980s and they
were offered ad hoc appointments with
effect from 7.3.1995. They possessed
requisite qualification for appointment to
the post. By virtue of Rule 21-A(1), their
services were liable to be considered for
regularisation soon after the introduction of
Rule 21-A(1) in the Rules, 1966. Merely
because the State did not consider their
services for regularisation for sufficiently
long would not be a valid ground to allow
the State to contend now that since their
entry into service is after 1.4.2005,
therefore, they would not be entitled to the
benefit under the Old Pension Scheme.

17. In somewhat similar facts and
circumstances,
one
Badri
Narayan
Agnihotri alongwith two others approached
this Court by filing Writ A No. 11333 of
2021. Their writ petition was allowed. The
State preferred Special Appeal No. 375 of
2022, wherein a coordinate Bench of this
Court took a similar view and, for the
purposes of entitlement of pension, traced
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav
393
the date of appointment to the date when
entitlement was acquired for regularisation
by the writ petitioner.

18. Observation made by the
Division Bench in this regard reads as
under :

"However, we find that the writ
petitioner
/
respondent
was
directly
appointed on ad-hoc basis on 25.8.1989 i.e.
on a date anterior to June 30, 1998
mentioned under Rule 21-A (i) and has
been continuing in service as such on the
date of commencement of the Rules, 2003
and possessed the requisite qualifications
prescribed under Rule 12 for regular
appointment and has also completed three
years continuous service was liable to be
considered for appointment in permanent
or temporary vacancy and as such,
absorbed as "Member of the Service" since
July, 2001 and in such view of the matter,
he would stand entitled to the Old Pension
Scheme.
The
State
Government
has
proceeded to regularize the services of the
writ petitioner / respondent only in the year
2008 even though he stood entitled to the
same in the year 2001 itself. In our opinion,
the writ petitioner / respondent could not
be deprived of his absorption as a member
of the services merely on account of the
lackadaisical attitude of the Government."

19. The aforesaid judgment of the
Division Bench was challenged by the
State by filing Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No. 29048 of 2022 which was
dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
vide following order dated 21.11.2022 :

"Delay condoned.

Respondent No.1 - employee
joined service on ad-hoc basis as Revenue
Inspector
in
Municipal
Corporation,
Kanpur on 25.08.1989. Rule 21-A of The
Uttar
Pradesh
Palika
(Centralized)
Services (Twenty First Amendment) Rules,
2003 indicates that such of the ad- 2 hoc
employees who have completed 3 years of
continuous service, a right is conferred
upon
them
to
be
considered
for
appointment, in permanent or temporary
vacancy as may be available on the basis of
his services record and suitability before
any regular appointment is made in
accordance with the provisions contained
in these Rules.

The learned counsel for the
respondent contends that as he was
appointed on ad-hoc basis as Revenue
Officer on 25.08.1989 and on completing 3
years of services in the month of August
1992, he became eligible to be considered
for appointment in permanent/temporary
vacancy as available and his suitability
was to be considered on the basis of his
service record.

Much before the new Pension
Scheme came into force with effect from
01.04.2005, the rights were confirmed in
favour of the employee seeking regular
employment in terms of Rule 21-A (iii). It was
never the case of the petitioner that there was
no
vacancy,
permanent
or
temporary,
available against which his candidature would
have been considered for regular appointment
prior to his order of regular appointment
passed by the authorities on 05.02.2008.

Having heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties for quite some
time, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned order(s) passed by the High
Court. The Special Leave Petitions are,
accordingly,
dismissed.
Pending
interlocutory application, if any, stands
disposed of." (emphasis supplied by us)

20. A review petition filed by the
State in the aforesaid matter has also been
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
on 22.11.2023 vide following order :

"Prayer for oral hearing of the
review petitions is rejected.

There is a delay of 223 days in
filing the present review petitions, which
has not been satisfactorily explained. Even
otherwise, having gone through the review
petitions and also the documents enclosed,
we do not find any good ground and reason
to review the order dated 21.11.2022.

Accordingly, the review petitions are
dismissed on the ground of delay, as well as, on
merits.

Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of."

21. Reasoning similar to the above has
been adopted by another coordinate Bench of
this Court in Special Appeal No. 21 of 2022.
The Division Bench was of the view that once
regularisation Rules were notified in the year
2001 and the writ petitioner was entitled to be
regularised as per it, any delay in passing the
order of regularisation would not be detrimental
to the employee concerned for the purpose of
payment of pension. Paragraph 43 to 47 of the
aforesaid judgment read as under :

"43.
The
notification
dated
20.12.2001 was expected to be given effect to
with immediate effect and the consideration of
claim
for
regularization
of
respondent/petitioner ought not to have been
deferred for so long particularly in view of the
express provision contained in the rule itself.
Rule 2(iii) of the amended rules notified on
20.12.2001 also indicates the specific intent by
the
rule
framing
authority
for
such
consideration to be made before any regular
appointment is made in accordance with the
service rules. The language employed in rule
2(iii)
is
relevant
and
is
reproduced
hereinafter:-

"2(iii). Any person who - has
completed or, as the case may be, after he
has completed three years continuous
service shall be considered for regular
appointment in permanent or temporary
vacancy as may be available on the basis of
his record and suitability before any
regular appointment is made in such
vacancy in accordance with the relevant
service rules or orders."

44. The fact that the above rule
requires consideration for regularization
against permanent or temporary vacancy,
before any regular appointment is made in
accordance with relevant service rule is of
importance and cannot be ignored. The
rule making authority was conscious that
non
consideration
of
claim
for
regularization
notwithstanding
the
existence of rule for such purpose may
adversely affect the adhoc employee, in the
matter of determination of seniority etc.
and, therefore, made a specific provision
for such regularization under the rules to
be considered prior to any regular
appointment made in such vacancy in
accordance with the relevant service rules.
Denial
of
timely
consideration
in
accordance
with
the
rules
for
regularization may otherwise deny service
and retiral benefits to adhoc employees
only because of administrative lethargy on
part of the department concerned in
processing such claim.

45.
No
valid
reasons
have
otherwise
been
disclosed
for
non
consideration
of
claim
of
respondent/petitioner
for
regularization
after 20.12.2001, particularly when the
order dated 21.2.1997 already existed of
this Court for regularizing his services. The
only plea taken in the counter affidavit to
justify
belated
consideration
for
regularization is that the State Government
directed such claim to be considered only
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav
395
vide order 7.9.2018. This plea of the
appellant
to
explain
the
delay
in
consideration of claim for regularization is
noticed only to be rejected.

46.
The
regularization
rules
notified on 20.12.2001 were applicable in
respect of all adhoc appointments made
prior to 30.6.1998 on posts falling within
the
purview
of
the
Public
Service
Commission which included the department
of minor irrigation as well and there
existed no specific need of any further
Administrative/Government order to be
issued for the rules of regularization to be
given effect to. The post of Junior Engineer
in the Department of Minor Irrigation was
clearly a post covered by the notification
dated 20.12.2001 and issuance of the
direction contained in the government
order dated 7.9.2018 was not essential and
at best reminded the authorities to act as
per the notification dated 20.12.2001.
Services of various other persons such as
Prabhu Nath Singh, Shailendra Pratap
Singh, etc. were otherwise regularized
much prior to 7.9.2018. The argument that
this was done in compliance of the court's
order does not inspire confidence as the
direction of court existed in favour of
respondent/petitioner to be considered for
regularization
from
1997
itself.
The
authorities cannot be permitted to pick and
choose in the matter of consideration of
case for regularization under the orders of
court. The authorities of the State,
therefore, are not justified in denying
consideration to the case of respondent
appellant for regularization soon after
issuance of notification dated 20.12.2001
and in any view before making any regular
appointment
in accordance
with
the
relevant service rules by virtue of amended
rule 2 (iii).

47. Viewed from such intendment
in the rules of regularization notified on
20.12.2001
the
action
of
appellant
authorities in not considering petitioner's
claim
for
regularization
within
a
reasonable period despite an order of the
competent court cannot be approved."

22. The above judgment of the
Division Bench has also been assailed by
the State by preferring Special Leave
Petition which has been dismissed. Review
Petition has also been rejected.

23. In the facts and circumstances
of the present case, we are, therefore, of the
considered view that claim of all the writ
petitioners for regularisation was required
to be considered pursuant to Rule 21-A(1)
introduced on 10.04.2003. Any delay
occasioned by the State in consideration of
their claim for regularisation cannot be a
ground to deny benefit of pension to the
writ petitioners. On 10.04.2003, Old
Pension
Scheme
was
applicable.
Entitlement of respondents/writ petitioners
for regularisation is also undisputed.
Following the reasoning adopted by the
coordinate
Division
Benches
in
the
aforesaid two matters which have attained
finality with dismissal of Special Leave
Petitions and Review Petitions, we are
inclined to hold that all the writ petitioners
would be entitled to the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme treating their date of entry
into service as 10.4.2003. The appellantState shall calculate the pension of the
respondents/writ petitioners treating their
substantive appointment to have been made
on 10.4.2003.

24. The direction issued by the
learned Single Judge for granting pension
from 1995, however, cannot be sustained
and stands modified accordingly. The
pensionery benefits in terms of above
determination would be extended to all the
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
writ petitioners within a period of three
months from the date of presentation of a
copy of this order. Some of the persons
who are already getting pensions would be
entitled to re-determination of their pension
in terms of the above direction. However,
no recovery would be made from them.

25. In view of the above, these
appeals are disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 396
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Special Appeal No. 727 of 2024
With
Special Appeal No. 726 of 2024

Mayashankar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Kailash Singh Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashutosh Mani Tripathi, C.S.C., Rohit
Singh, Vijay Kumar Ojha

A. Service Law - UP Secondary Education
(Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 -
Rules framed under Act of 1982 - Rule 11
-
Post
of
Principal
-
Power
of
appointment by way of transfer, extent of
- Requisition was sent after vacancy was
arisen - However, appointment by way of
transfer was made - Permissibility - Held,
once the requisition for direct recruitment
was
sent
to
the
Inspector,
by the
Management, in terms of rules 11 of the
rules framed under the Act of 1982, the
transfer of a teacher against such vacancy
was impermissible - Prashant Kumar
Katiyar' case relied upon. (Para 16)
B. Service Law - UP Education Service
Selection Commission Act, 2023 - Section
31(2) - Post of Principal - Appointment -
Requisition
was
already
sent
for
appointment - How far, such requisition is
saved under Act of 2023 - Held, the
determination
of
vacancies
and
its
intimation to the commission virtually
commences the process of recruitment in
these
institutions.
Sending
of
the
requisition to the board would, therefore,
continue to be saved under the Act of
2023 and the only change would be that
now the appointment will have to be
made by the commission in place of the
board. (Para 34)

Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
1. Prashant Kumar Katiyar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2013 (1) ADJ 523
2. Hari Pal Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2016) 6 All LJ
203
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. These appeals arise out of the
judgment and order of learned Single Judge
dated
13.8.2024,
whereby
two
writ
petitions filed by the appellant are decided.
Learned Single Judge has dismissed both
the writ petitions and vacated the interim
order granted earlier.

2. The controversy leading to filing
of the present appeal lies in a limited
factual scenario. The appellant herein was
appointed as lecturer in Bharat Sewak
Samaj Inter College, Hathiyar, Varanasi
(hereinafter referred to as the 'institution').
He was appointed as officiating principal of
the institution on 30.3.2018. His signatures
were also attested by the District Inspector