# State of U.P. & Ors v. Yogendra Nath Singh

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 800
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-07-07
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 456 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-yogendra-nath-singh-43191
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Payment
of gratuity and pension-an employee of
DRDA-entitlement not disputed-learned
Single Judge rightly issued mandamusspecial appeal by state government-on
ground central government not giving
necessary fund-can not be ground to deny
such benefits-direction by Single Judge
modified to the extant having binding
force-upon agency-appeal disposed of.
Held: Para-5
The
relationship
of
employer
and
employee is between the respondent and
the DRDA which is a society registered
under the Act of 1860. Hence, the
mandamus which has been issued by the
learned Single Judge would operate
against the society with whom there is a
relationship of employer and employee.
The purported difficulty which the State
Government faces in regard to receiving
the share of the Union Government
towards the expenditure cannot, in our
view,
affect
the
entitlement
of
an
employee or his right to receive the
payment of gratuity from his employer
once the entitlement is not in dispute.
Any dispute or difficulty as between the
State and the Union Governments has to
be resolved at the governmental level
and cannot be a ground to deny the
payment of gratuity. All that we need to
clarify is that the mandamus which has
been issued by the learned Single Judge
will operate against the DRDA of which
the respondent is an employee and
which is a society under the Act of 1860.
Case Law discussed:
W.P. No. 20025 of 2006; Special Appeal
(Defective) No. 687 of 2010

## Text

800
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4A(2) of the Act on 30 May 1970 for
launching
consolidation
operations,
the
consolidation
authorities
made
several
attempts to complete the work of demarcation
and delivery of possession of chaks but the
rival groups in the village seriously opposed
the work of demarcation. There was an
apprehension of a breach of peace in the
village, as a result of which it became
impossible to start and complete the work at
the stage of Section 24 of the Act. The village
was notified in 1970 and though more than 40
years had elapsed, the village consolidation
scheme could not be implemented. In these
compelling circumstances, the District Deputy
Director of Consolidation directed the District
Consolidation Authority to submit a report on
whether a consolidation scheme in the village
could be completed or not. Pursuant thereto,
the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the
Consolidation Officer visited the village. In
the course of the enquiry, it was found that
during the pendency of certain writ petitions
before this Court, stay orders had been passed
and there was serious local opposition to the
work of demarcation. Despite the passage of
nearly forty years, the villagers were still in
possession of their original holdings and
almost all the villagers were in favour of the
issuance of a notification under Section 6 of
the
Act.
The
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation) reported the matter to the
District Deputy Director of Consolidation
who, in turn, forwarded it to the Consolidation
Commissioner for appropriate action. It was
on this basis that a decision was taken to
cancel the notification under Section 4 of the
Act since it was found that there was no need
to effect a change, the villagers being in
possession of their plots for almost forty years.
9. The submission which has been
urged on behalf of the appellants has a
clear basis in the law which has been laid
down in the judgment of the Supreme
Court as well as in the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court noted above.
The issuance of a notification under
Section 6 of the Act cannot be regarded as
arbitrary having due regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case noted
above. No rights enuring to the benefit of
the first, second and third respondents
stood affected by the issuance of a
notification under Section 6 of the Act.
Hence, the order of the learned Single
Judge quashing the notification was
clearly not warranted. The learned Single
Judge, in fact, issued a further direction to
the consolidation authorities to ensure the
demarcation of chaks and the delivery of
possession with the assistance of police
force. These directions have caused
serious prejudice to the appellants who
are not parties to the proceedings and
would be directly affected by such
directions.
10. For these reasons, we hold that
the impugned judgment and order dated
27 April 2015 is unsustainable. The
special appeal is accordingly allowed by
setting aside the judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge dated 27 April
2015. The writ petition filed by the first,
second and third respondents shall, in
consequence, stand dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 456 of 2015
State of U.P. & Ors.
 ...Appellants
2 All] State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Yogendra Nath Singh
801
Versus
Yogendra Nath Singh
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri C.B. Yadav, Addl. Adv. General, Sri
Shashank Shekhar Singh, Addl. C.S.C.,
Ramanand Pandey, S.C.
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.B. Singh
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Payment
of gratuity and pension-an employee of
DRDA-entitlement not disputed-learned
Single Judge rightly issued mandamusspecial appeal by state government-on
ground central government not giving
necessary fund-can not be ground to deny
such benefits-direction by Single Judge
modified to the extant having binding
force-upon agency-appeal disposed of.
Held: Para-5
The
relationship
of
employer
and
employee is between the respondent and
the DRDA which is a society registered
under the Act of 1860. Hence, the
mandamus which has been issued by the
learned Single Judge would operate
against the society with whom there is a
relationship of employer and employee.
The purported difficulty which the State
Government faces in regard to receiving
the share of the Union Government
towards the expenditure cannot, in our
view,
affect
the
entitlement
of
an
employee or his right to receive the
payment of gratuity from his employer
once the entitlement is not in dispute.
Any dispute or difficulty as between the
State and the Union Governments has to
be resolved at the governmental level
and cannot be a ground to deny the
payment of gratuity. All that we need to
clarify is that the mandamus which has
been issued by the learned Single Judge
will operate against the DRDA of which
the respondent is an employee and
which is a society under the Act of 1860.
Case Law discussed:
W.P. No. 20025 of 2006; Special Appeal
(Defective) No. 687 of 2010
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. This special appeal has arisen from
a judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge dated 12 February 2015. By the
judgment in appeal, the learned Single
Judge issued a mandamus to the appellants
for the payment of gratuity to the original
petitioner, the respondent to the special
appeal, in terms of a notification dated 6
September 1997 under which employees of
registered societies have been notified to be
entitled to gratuity under the Payment of
Gratuity Act 19721.
2. The respondent was appointed as
a junior clerk and retired from service on
30 January 2009. By his writ petition, he
sought a mandamus for the payment of
gratuity and post retiral benefits within a
specified period and sought to challenge
an order passed by the Commissioner,
Rural Development on 13 January 2010.
The Commissioner, Rural Development
held that employees of the District Rural
Development Agency2 are not governed
by the rules framed under Article 309 of
the Constitution and are not employees of
the State and consequently would not be
entitled to the payment of gratuity. Before
this Court, there is no dispute about the
entitlement of the respondent to the
payment of gratuity in terms of the
notification dated 6 September 1997
issued by the Central Government under
Section 1(3)(c) of the Act of 1972. The
notification was taken note of in a
judgment dated 14 March 2012 of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in
Matadeen Yadav vs. State of U.P. and
others3. The learned Single Judge, in our
802
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
view, correctly held that in order to entitle
an employee to the payment of gratuity, it
is not necessary that the employee must
be employed by the State or by the
Central Government. Admittedly, DRDA
is a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act 18604. The manner in
which the society was constituted was
taken due note of in a judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in State of
U.P. & Ors. vs. Pitamber5 decided on 19
August
2010.
The
Division
Bench
observed as follows:
"...The respondent herein is working
in the DRDA, which was earlier created
in each district of the State under the
directions of the Government of India for
ensuring effective implementation of rural
development
programmes.
Formal
creation of DRDA was contemplated
under the Office Memorandum of the
Government of India dated 24.10.1980,
which provided that DRDA will be
created as a Society in each district. The
State Government, vide Government
Order dated 24.11.1980, created DRDAs
in each district. The Central Government
issued an Office Memorandum dated
10.03.1981 pursuant to which all DRDAs
prepared almost identical Bye-laws. As
regards the structure of DRDAs, District
Magistrates are the Head of each DRDA
and total funding is being done by the
Central
Government
and
State
Government in the ratio of 70 - 30.
Applying the test of funding and
pervasive control which the State have
over the DRDAs, there can be no dispute
that the DRDA is a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India..."
3. The submission which has been
urged on behalf of the State by the learned
Additional Advocate General is that
DRDA, as an agency, was constituted by
the State Government under the directions
of the Government of India and in terms
of an office memorandum dated 24
October 1980 which contemplated that
such an agency would be created as a
society in each district.
The State
Government issued a Government Order
on 24 November 1980 for the creation of
DRDAs in every district. The grievance
of the State Government is that though the
funds required by the DRDAs were to be
shared in the proportion of 70:30 between
the Union and the State Governments, the
Union Government has not been meeting
its obligation. In this regard, on 6
November 2011, the Union Government
in the Ministry of Rural Development
clarified that the DRDAs should manage
the expenditure on gratuity etc. from the
overall funds available with them.
4. The learned Additional Advocate
General drew the attention of the Court to
the communications addressed by the
State
Government
to
the
Union
Government, among them, a letter dated 1
April 2015 addressed by
the Chief
Minister to the Prime Minister regarding a
request for the disbursement of an amount
of Rs.26.69 crores and to a letter dated 13
May 2015 of the Principal Secretary in
the department of Rural Development to
the Secretary in the Union Ministry of
Rural Development seeking release of a
shortfall of Rs.32.42 crores for 2014-15
and the release of the first installment for
2015-16 in the amount of Rs.103.26
crores. The submission is that DRDAs in
every district are headed by District
Magistrates and though the relationship of
employer and employee is between each
employee and the DRDA, ultimately the
District Magistrates would look to the
2 All] Smt. Somwati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
803
State Government for being placed with
funds for disbursing the liability if any.
Consequently, it was submitted that
unless the Central Government bears its
part of the financial expenditure as
claimed by the State, there is no reason or
justification to fasten the liability on the
State Government alone.
5. The issue before the Court is as to
whether the dispute in regard to the funding
requirement of the DRDA, can in any
manner, affect the entitlement of an
employee to the payment of gratuity. The
entitlement of an employee to receive
gratuity is not in dispute. As an employee of
a registered society, and as held in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in
Matadeen Yadav's case, the respondent was
entitled to the payment of gratuity under the
Act of 1972. The relationship of employer
and employee is between the respondent
and the DRDA which is a society registered
under the Act of 1860. Hence, the
mandamus which has been issued by the
learned Single Judge would operate against
the society with whom there is a
relationship of employer and employee. The
purported
difficulty
which
the
State
Government faces in regard to receiving the
share of the Union Government towards the
expenditure cannot, in our view, affect the
entitlement of an employee or his right to
receive the payment of gratuity from his
employer once the entitlement is not in
dispute. Any dispute or difficulty as
between
the
State
and
the
Union
Governments has to be resolved at the
governmental level and cannot be a ground
to deny the payment of gratuity. All that we
need to clarify is that the mandamus which
has been issued by the learned Single Judge
will operate against the DRDA of which the
respondent is an employee and which is a
society under the Act of 1860.
6.

The
special
appeal
is,
accordingly, disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 503 of 2015
Smt. Somwati
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Mohd. Navi Hussain
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ravindra Kumar Gaur
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
petition-claim of family pension-dismissal
by learned Single Judge on laches-whether
justified?-held-'No'-as no third party rights
affected-from delay-the sufferer person is
only petitioner itself-delay not fatal-appeal
allowed.
Held: Para-6
We are of the view that the learned
Single Judge was manifestly in error in
dismissing the writ petition on the
ground
of
laches.
The
appropriate
remedy would be to direct that the claim
of the appellant be duly verified in
accordance with law. We clarify that
authorities shall duly scrutinize the basis
of the claim on merits and if the
appellant is entitled to the payment of
family pension, such payment, for a
period of three years prior to the filing
the writ petition, shall be effected in
favour of the appellant. We clarify that
this would be subject to due verification
of each and every factual averment
which is contained in the petition by the