# State of U.P. & Ors v. Raj Kumar Singh

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1548
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-15
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 18527 of 2021
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-raj-kumar-singh-50138
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Disciplinary proceedings -
Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Officers
of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 14 - Issue:
Whether the Tribunal was competent to
usurp the role of an appellate authority by
setting aside the punishment order when,
admittedly, the factum of the charge of
overstay of leave was not denied by the
employee? Held: Courts/Tribunals are not
to
act
as
appellate
authorities
in
disciplinary
proceedings.
Tribunal
exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside
the
impugned
order
passed
by
the
Disciplinary
Authority
imposing
punishment on the respondent. At most,
Tribunal could have remitted the matter to
the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh
order.
Tribunal
was
not
within
its
jurisdiction and competence to set aside
the punishment while 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 with the guilt or
perverse. (Para 35, 36)
B.
Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Officers
of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Appendix-1 of
Rules, 1991 - Appendix-1 of the Rules,
1991,
specifically
provides
that
the
Inquiry
Officer
may
recommend
the
proposed punishment after concluding the
departmental proceedings. The proviso to
this Appendix provides that the Inquiry
Officer may also, separately from these
proceedings,
make
his
own
recommendation
regarding
the
punishment to be imposed on the charged
police officer. (Para 32)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

1548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can be imposed upon the employee. This
Court in the matter of Kamla Charan Misra
and Sohan Lal (supra) has taken the view that
once the enquiry proceeding initiated has not
been completed as provided in the Rule and
ultimately minor penalty may not be
imposed. In present case too, this fact is very
much clear that enquiry proceeding was
initiated after suspension of petitioner for
imposing major penalty but ultimately
without completing the same, minor penalty
has been imposed, which is in-violation of
Rule as well as law laid down by Apex Court
as well as of this Court, therefore, such order
can not be sustained in the eye of law.

26. In view of above, the order dated
22.09.2000 passed by the respondent
No.3/District Magistrate Ballia as well as
order dated 30.04.2003 passe by respondent
No.2/Commissioner,
Azamgarh
Region
Azamgarh are hereby quashed. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

27. The respondents are at liberty to
proceed in accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1548
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-A No. 18527 of 2021

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Raj Kumar Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C., Sri Jagdish Pathak

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ram Narain
A. Civil Law - Disciplinary proceedings -
Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Officers
of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 14 - Issue:
Whether the Tribunal was competent to
usurp the role of an appellate authority by
setting aside the punishment order when,
admittedly, the factum of the charge of
overstay of leave was not denied by the
employee? Held: Courts/Tribunals are not
to
act
as
appellate
authorities
in
disciplinary
proceedings.
Tribunal
exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside
the
impugned
order
passed
by
the
Disciplinary
Authority
imposing
punishment on the respondent. At most,
Tribunal could have remitted the matter to
the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh
order.
Tribunal
was
not
within
its
jurisdiction and competence to set aside
the punishment while 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 with the guilt or
perverse. (Para 35, 36)
B.
Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Officers
of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Appendix-1 of
Rules, 1991 - Appendix-1 of the Rules,
1991,
specifically
provides
that
the
Inquiry
Officer
may
recommend
the
proposed punishment after concluding the
departmental proceedings. The proviso to
this Appendix provides that the Inquiry
Officer may also, separately from these
proceedings,
make
his
own
recommendation
regarding
the
punishment to be imposed on the charged
police officer. (Para 32)
List of Cases cited:

1. Syed Yakoob Vs K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964
SC 477

2. U.O.I.Vs P. Gunasekaran 2015 (2) SCC 610

3. U.O.I.Vs Flight Cadet Ashish Rai 2006 (2) SCC
364
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Singh
1549
4. Hombe Gowda Educational Trust Vs St. of
Karn. 2006 (1) SCC 430

5. Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs U.O.I. & anr. 2012
(30) LDC 519

6. Masood Asghar Vs Uttar Pradesh State Public
Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow & ors.
2019 (5) ADJ 179 (DB) (LB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.
&
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar -IV, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Monika Arya, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Ram Narain, learned
Counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent-petitioners by the
instant writ petition are assailing the order
dated 23 March, 2021, passed in Claim
Petition No.707 of 2016, by the State
Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for
short, "Tribunal"), allowing the petition of
the applicant-respondent setting aside the
order of punishment imposed upon the
applicant-respondent
in
disciplinary
proceedings.

3. The short question that arises for
consideration is, as to whether the Tribunal
was competent to usurp upon itself the role
of an appellate authority by setting aside
the punishment order, when admittedly, the
factum of the charge of overstay of leave
was not denied by the employee.

4. The facts giving rise to the instant
writ petition is that the respondent was
working as a Constable since 2003, he was
charged for unauthorized absence from
duty from 10 November, 2006 to 09
August, 2007, and for the subsequent
development of having been arrested, and
imprisoned in case crime no.252 of 2008,
under Section 25 Arms Act; case crime
no.252 of 2008, under Sections 8/20 NDPS
Act and case crime no.184 of 2008, under
Section 392 & 411 IPC. In all the cases
charge sheet has been submitted against the
respondent.

5. Disciplinary proceedings came to
be initiated under Rule 14(1) of the Uttar
Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate
Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
(for short, "Rules, 1991"), for imposition of
major penalty. It appears that respondent
did
not
participate
in
the
inquiry,
consequently, he came to be dismissed
from service by order dated 09 August,
2007, purportedly passed under Rule 8 (2)
of the Rules, 1991. The order, however,
came to be quashed by this Court in Writ-A
No.16992 of 2008, vide order dated 18
April, 2008. The Court, however, left it
open to the authorities to conduct an
inquiry against the respondent as per rules.

6. On the date of passing of the order
by the Court, respondent was languishing
in jail on being arrested in the aforenoted
criminal cases. The respondent came to be
bailed out on 16 July, 2008, but did not report
for duty, nor, did he appear before the
authority for reinstating him in service. In
other words, respondent did not inform the
authorities about his imprisonment and
registration of criminal cases against him. It is
only in the year 2013, he gave an application
on 05 April, 2013, to the concerned authority
requesting for reinstatement in service.
Thereafter, respondent came to be reinstated in
service and a fresh disciplinary proceedings
was sought to be initiated against him in
compliance of the order of the State
Government dated 17 January, 2014.

7. A fact finding inquiry was setup to
report with regard to his unauthorized
1550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
absence and subsequent custody of the
respondent in the criminal cases. The
Officer submitted a preliminary inquiry
report on 30 June, 2014, and supplementary
report on 23 September, 2014. Thereafter,
respondent was issued charge sheet dated
07 October, 2014, initiating disciplinary
proceedings under Section 14(1) of the
Rules, 1991, on a charge of being absent
unauthorizedly from 16 November, 2016,
and for being arrested and imprisoned in
the criminal cases lodged against the
respondent. The respondent submitted his
objections dated 24 October, 2014, to the
charge admitting his absence, but furnished
explanation for his absence. The witnesses
noted in support of the charge were
examined in the presence of the respondent
and was allowed to cross examine the
witnesses on the date and time fixed by the
Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, respondent was
permitted to file his defence by the Inquiry
Officer vide communication dated 05
November, 2014. The respondent filed his
reply / application dated 15 November,
2014, submitting that he did not desire to
produce any other evidence or witness in
defence and requested the Inquiry Officer
to consider his explanation submitted
earlier and pass appropriate orders. The
statement of the respondent was also
recorded on the same date i.e. 15
November,
2014.
Thereafter,
Inquiry
Officer submitted Inquiry Report dated 07
January, 2015, wherein, the charge of
unauthorized absence was proved against
the respondent.

8. The charge against the respondent
was that he was directed on 16 November,
2006, to proceed from Agra to the place of
his destination at Lucknow University,
along-with, Manik Chandra and report for
duty at Lucknow, but in midway he
vanished and did not join the team at the
destination
in
Lucknow.
Further,
respondent had suppressed the registration
of the FIR lodged against him and did not
inform the authorities with regard to his
arrest. Accordingly, Inquiry Officer was of
the view that the conduct of the respondent
falls
under
the
category
of
grave
indiscipline and carelessness towards his
duty. The Inquiry Officer taking a lenient
view however recommended punishment to
revert the respondent on the lowest pay
scale for three years and not to pay salary
and other emoluments for the period of
unauthorized absence from duty i.e. 16
November, 2006 to 09 August, 2007.

9. Disciplinary Authority issued show
cause notice dated 15 February, 2015,
calling upon the respondent to submit his
objection to the proposed punishment. The
respondent filed objections to the notice on
03 March, 2015. Third petitioner
-
Commandant, 15th Batallion, Agra /
Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 14
May,
2015,
imposed
punishment
of
reduction to the lowest pay scale for three
years for unauthorized absence from 10
November, 2006 to 09 August, 2007.

10. Aggrieved, respondent filed an
appeal before the second petitioner -
Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAC
Agra, which came to be dismissed by a
speaking order dated 26 December, 2015.
The respondent instead of filing revision
before next higher officer, approached the
Tribunal by instituting a claim petition
challenging
the
impugned
orders
of
punishment.

11. The learned Tribunal allowed the
claim petition returning a finding that
Inquiry Officer had ignored the medical
certificates submitted by the respondent
which was a justified explanation for his
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Singh
1551
absence. A finding was returned that the
absence was not willful but due to
compelling circumstances. The Tribunal
was of the opinion that no inquiry was
made by the Inquiry Officer with regard to
the validity of the medical certificates
submitted by the respondents in defence of
his unauthorized absence. Further, Tribunal
was of the view that the Inquiry Officer
committed an illegality proposing the
punishment that ought to be awarded to the
respondent,
therefore,
Disciplinary
Authority without application of mind
mechanically awarded the punishment
proposed by the Inquiry Officer.

12. Learned Tribunal set aside the
impugned punishment orders primarily on
the ground that no inquiry or investigation
was made by the Disciplinary Authority or
Appellate Authority with regard to the
validity
of
the
medical
certificates
submitted by the respondent, consequently,
the medical certificates could not have been
disbelieved by the Inquiry Officer.

13.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State submits that the
learned Tribunal committed an error in
sitting in appeal over the findings returned
by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer
did not recommend any punishment, rather,
proposed the punishment that may be
imposed
upon
the
respondent.
The
Disciplinary Authority after show cause
notice imposed the punishment by a
reasoned and speaking order. It was always
open to the Disciplinary Authority to have
imposed a severe punishment having regard
to the nature of charge against the
respondent.

14. It is further submitted that the
medical certificates clearly shows that the
respondent was an outdoor patient for
simple health issues and did not require
in-house
hospitalization.
In
the
circumstances, the respondent ought to
have informed the authorities about his
absence and subsequent arrest.

15. It is further submitted that the
Inquiry Officer had rightly not accepted
the medical certificates as on the face of
it, did not disclose any serious ailment
which required indoor treatment or
confinement to bed. It is finally submitted
that Tribunal committed an error usurping
upon itself the role of the Disciplinary
Authority in setting aside the punishment,
rather, the matter should have been
remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to
pass a fresh order of punishment. The
Tribunal could not have set aside the
order of punishment without returning a
finding that the disciplinary proceeding
was
vitiated
and
nonest
for
non
compliance of the provisions of Rules,
1991, or, otherwise.

16. Learned Counsel appearing for
the respondent does not dispute the facts
and admits that respondent employee had
participated
in
the
disciplinary
proceedings, filed his objections and
cross examined the witnesses. In other
words he does not dispute that the
procedure contemplated under Rules,
1991, was not duly complied.

17.

On
specific
query,
he
categorically submits that the factum of the
charge of unauthorized absence and that the
respondent was arrested in criminal cases
was not disputed, but reliance was placed
on the medical certificates to explain and
justify the unauthorized absence. It is,
therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has
not committed any illegality or infirmity in
setting aside the punishment order, having
1552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regard to the medical certificates. The
absence from duty was not wilful and
deliberate.

18. Rival submissions fall for
considerations.

19. The facts inter-se parties are not
disputed.

20. It is settled principle of law that
the Courts / Tribunal in exercise of its
power of judicial review of disciplinary
proceedings cannot sit in appeal and
examine the sufficiency of the evidence led
in the disciplinary proceedings. The judicial
review of disciplinary proceedings is
confined and limited to the procedure as to
whether the disciplinary proceedings was
conducted fairly as per the Rules and that
the respondent employee was given full
and fair opportunity to present his case
before the Inquiry Officer.

21. The Tribunal / Court in exercise of
jurisdiction
of
judicial
review
of
disciplinary proceedings can interfere only
when conclusions of the Inquiry Officer is
perverse or based on no evidence. On
appreciation of evidence, it is not open for
the Tribunal / Court to substitute its own
opinion based on the appreciation of
material on record on the charges proved.

22. A finding of fact recorded by the
Disciplinary
Authority
cannot
be
challenged on the ground that the relevant
and material evidence adduced before the
Disciplinary Authority is insufficient or
inadequate to sustain a finding. The
adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on
a point and the inference of fact drawn
from the said fact are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Tribunal. [Refer: Syed
Yakoob
versus
K.S.
Radhakrishnan1;
Union of India versus P. Gunasekaran2;
Union of India versus Flight Cadet Ashish
Rai3 and Hombe Gowda Educational Trust
versus State of Karnataka4].

23. In the admitted facts of the present
case, the factum of the charge of
unauthorized absence and subsequent arrest
and confinment in jail is not disputed.
Further, it is admitted that while on duty the
respondent vanished in between and did not
report at the station of duty along-with his
colleague. It is admitted that the respondent
did not inform the authorities that he could
not report for duty due his severe illness. It
is also admitted that he came to be arrested
subsequently in three criminal cases of
serious nature and on being enlarged on
bail on 16 July, 2008, he reported for
reinstatement on 05 April, 2013 i.e. after a
lapse of almost five years of absence.

24. In the circumstances, since the
year 2006 till 2013, for almost seven years,
the respondent being a member of a
disciplined Force absented himself without
information which is a gross misconduct.
The Inquiry Officer on perusal of the
medical certificates submitted by the
respondent in his defence was justified in
not accepting the certificates as it was
procured by the respondent to justify his
unauthorized
absence.
The
medical
certificates relied upon by the respondent
has been placed on record.

25. The medical certificates were
obtained from Medical Superintendent
Officer,
Community
Health
Center
Sadabad, Mathura, dated 07 December,
2016, certifying that the respondent was
suffering from ''pain with tenderness'.
Accordingly, in the opinion of the Medical
Officer, the absence of the respondent from
17 November, 2006 to 07 December, 2006,
5 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Singh
1553
was absolutely necessary for ''restoration of
his health'. The other medical certificate
dated 26 October, 2007, issued by the
Senior Medical Officer, District Hospital,
Mathura, records that since the respondent
was suffering from ''acute lumbar with
sciatica', therefore, advised to take rest
from 20 February, 2007 to 26 October,
2007. The other medical certificate issued
by the District Hospital, Mathura, which is
undated, records that respondent was issued
OPD No.203920 and advised 15 days plus
8 weeks rest from 08 December, 2006 to 19
February, 2007. It is further noted that the
certificates are not relied for M/C (medical
certificate) purpose.

26. Supreme Court in Krushnakant
B. Parmar versus Union of India and
another5, has held that the absence of the
employee must not be wilful but under
compelling circumstances. Paragraph 16
and 17 of the report is extracted:-

"16.
The
question
whether
`unauthorized absence from duty' amounts
to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour
unbecoming of a Government servant
cannot be decided without deciding the
question whether absence is willful or
because of compelling circumstances.

17. If the absence is the result of
compelling circumstances under which it
was not possible to report or perform duty,
such absence cannot be held to be willful."

27. The medical certificates submitted
by the respondent, in the opinion of the
Inquiry Officer, did not inspire confidence
for the reason that the respondent was an
outdoor patient and the medical illness of
the respondent was not of serious nature so
as to preclude him from reporting for duty.
The Inquiry Officer opined that had the
medical illness of the respondent been so
serious, then in that event, from Sadabad
station he would have proceed to the
nearby Agra station for treatment, where
superior medical facilities are available. In
the circumstances, the explanation of the
respondent that he fell ill at Sadabad and
from there he went home, based on the
medical certificates was not accepted. It is
not a case that the Inquiry Officer ignored
the medical certificates or disbelieved it,
rather, the explanation of the respondent
based on the medical certificates submitted
by him was not accepted by the Inquiry
Officer. The medical certificates admittedly
record illness of minor nature. Further,
respondent was an outdoor patient and it is
not his case that he was confined to bed and
was not possible to report for duty. In other
words, it is not a case of compelling nature
to avoid duty. It is a case of deliberate and
willful absence from duty.

28. It is admitted by learned counsel
for the respondent that the medical
prescription and treatment undertaken by
the respondent in support of the medical
certificates was not produced, nor, filed
before the Inquiry Officer. Further, he
admits that the respondent was an outdoor
patient. It is also not the case of the
respondent at any point of time, that
respondent had informed the department of
his absence due to his illness or due to his
detention in jail pursuant to the FIRs.

29. On the question as to whether the
enquiry officer can propose the punishment
in his report. In the State of Uttaranchal
and others versus Kharak Singh6, the
Supreme Court relying upon an earlier
decision rendered in A.N. D'Silva versus
Union of India7, on considering the
question whether an enquiry officer can
indicate the proposed punishment in his
1554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
report, the Court pointed that it is for
punishing/disciplinary authority to impose
an appropriate punishment and the enquiry
officer has no role in awarding punishment.
The question of imposing punishment can
only arise after enquiry is made and the
report of the enquiry officer is received. It
is for the punishing authority/disciplinary
authority to propose the punishment and
not for the enquiry authority.

30 . In Kharak Singh (supra) the
Court observed that though there is no
specific bar in offering views by the
enquiry officer, but, in the given facts, it
was held that the enquiry officer exceeded
his limit by saying that the delinquent
officer has no right to continue in
government service and he be dismissed
from service with the immediate effect.

31. We have perused Appendix-1 of
Rules 91, which provides as follows:

"PROCEDURE RELATING TO
THE CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST
POLICE
OFFICER [See RULE 14(1)]

Upon institution of a formal
enquiry such police officer against whom
the inquiry has been instituted shall be
informed in writing of the grounds on
which was proposed to take action and
shall be afforded an adequate opportunity
of defending himself .................

.............. The proceedings shall
contain a sufficient record of the evidence
and statement of the finding and the ground
thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also
separately from these proceedings make
his own recommendation regarding the
punishment to be imposed on the charged
Police Officer.".

32. Appendix-1 of Rules, 1991,
therefore, specifically provides that Inquiry
Officer
may
recommend
proposed
punishment
after
concluding
the
departmental proceedings. Proviso to this
Appendix provides that the Inquiry Officer
may also separately from this proceedings
make his own recommendation regarding
the punishment to be imposed on the
charged police officer.

33. Division Bench of this Court in
Masood Asghar Versus Uttar Pradesh
State Public Service Tribunal, Indira
Bhawan, Lucknow and others8, relying
upon an earlier decision observed that the
Inquiry Officer making recommendation of
the punishment is merely an irregularity
and that would not vitiate the enquiry. The
only requirement is that the delinquent
employee must have notice of the proposed
punishment. Paragraph no.9 reads as under
:-

"9. A Division Bench of this
Court at Allahabad in Yash Pal Singh's
case supra has treated the recommendation
of the Inquiry Officer, on the point of
punishment, as an irregularity and has
relegated the matter to the disciplinary
authority to reconsider the award of
punishment, applying his own mind to the
facts of the case. The aforesaid facts are
not disputed by the Standing Counsel."

34. In view thereof, we are of the
opinion that the learned Tribunal exceeded
its
jurisdiction
in
setting
aside
the
impugned order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority imposing punishment on the
respondent. At the most, Tribunal could
have remitted the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority to pass a fresh order. The
Tribunal was not within its jurisdiction and
competence to set aside the punishment
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,