# Suleman v. Principal S.T. High School & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 271
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-08
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 32542 of 1993
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suleman-v-principal-s-t-high-school-ors-54586
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226 - The University Non-Teaching
Employees (Terms and Conditions of
Services) Rules, 1972-Rule 11 & 14)- That
ad hoc/ temporary/ daily wage employees
rendering long years of service and were
permitted
to
superannuate
without
regularization/confirmation
in
service
are
entitled to post retiral benefits---Since the
petitioner had rendered continuous service for
decades, it creates a legitimate expectation for
proper
service
benefits---Petitioner
worked
continuously for 27 years until superannuation.
The University treated him as a regular
employee for all practical purposes, providing
him with all service benefits during his tenure.
To deny him post-retirement benefits merely
because he was not formally confirmed would
be unjust and contrary to the principles
established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this Court---Petitioner entitled to get the all post
retiral
benefits---Respondent
directed
to
calculate and release all post-retirement benefits
to the petitioner within a period of three
months.

Writ Petition allowed. (Para 30, 31 & 32)
(E-15)

List of Cases referred-:
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

4 All. Suleman Vs. Principal S.T. High School & Ors.
271
another (1989)4 SCC 187, State of
Jammu and Kashmir versus A.R. Zakki
and others (1992) Supp(1) SCC 548,
Union of India and others versus K.
Pushpavanam and others 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 630 and State of U.P. and others
versus Association of Retired Supreme
Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad
and others [2024]1 S.C.R. 211. Thus, in
view of the settled law, it cannot be said
that there is any arbitrariness or illegality in
the impugned order dated 14.12.2016.

In the impugned order and the
short counter affidavit filed by the State
Government in the year 2019, already an
undertaking has been given to frame Rules.
The petitioner does not have any vested
right for being appointed on the post of
Veterinary Pharmacist which is a post of
direct recruitment and as per prevailing
procedure, the vacancies of Pharmacists
shall be filled up according to the need of
the State Government. However, this court
being a Constitutional Court cannot issue a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the State Government to legislate and
frame rules as also to include two year
diploma course as an essential qualification
for appointment on the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist in view of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases.

9.Needless
to
say
that
the
supplementary counter affidavit was filed
by respondent No.1 in the year 2019. Two
years time has already passed in 2021 and
still the rules have not been notified. It is
expected that the State Government shall
abide by the undertaking given by it while
filing the supplementary counter affidavit
and as given in the impugned order dated
14.12.2016 (supra).

10.The writ petition, subject to above
observation, is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 271
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ A No. 32542 of 1993

Suleman ...Petitioner
Versus
Principal S.T. High School & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anand Tiwari, Kavish Suhail

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dilip Gupta, Shashank Shekhar Singh

Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226 - The University Non-Teaching
Employees (Terms and Conditions of
Services) Rules, 1972-Rule 11 & 14)- That
ad hoc/ temporary/ daily wage employees
rendering long years of service and were
permitted
to
superannuate
without
regularization/confirmation
in
service
are
entitled to post retiral benefits---Since the
petitioner had rendered continuous service for
decades, it creates a legitimate expectation for
proper
service
benefits---Petitioner
worked
continuously for 27 years until superannuation.
The University treated him as a regular
employee for all practical purposes, providing
him with all service benefits during his tenure.
To deny him post-retirement benefits merely
because he was not formally confirmed would
be unjust and contrary to the principles
established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this Court---Petitioner entitled to get the all post
retiral
benefits---Respondent
directed
to
calculate and release all post-retirement benefits
to the petitioner within a period of three
months.

Writ Petition allowed. (Para 30, 31 & 32)
(E-15)

List of Cases referred-:
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Hridaya Shanker Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported in 2005 SCC OnLine All 1627 : 2005 All
LJ 2654

2. OM PRAKASH GOEL Vs HIMACHAL PRADESH
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
SHIMLA reported in (1991) 2 UPLBEC 967:
((1991) 3 SCC 291: AIR 1991 SC 1490

3. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6118 OF 2024, ANAND
PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI Vs ST. OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ORS

4. St. of Gujarat & ors. Vs Talsibhai Dhanjibhai
Patel reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187

5. Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs U.O.I.& ors.
reported in 1996 (7) SCC 113

6. A.P. Srivastava Vs U.O.I.& ors. reported in
(1995) 3 UPLBEC 1842 (Supplement)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anand Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashank
Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2/The Registrar, Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh.

2. The writ petition was filed in the
year 1993 challenging the order dated
27.07.1993 passed by the Section Officer
on behalf of the Principal, S.T. High
School, A.M.U. Aligarh. By the aforesaid
order, the petitioner was informed that his
services may
not
be
required after
31.07.1993. The writ petition was duly
entertained and the following interim order
was granted by this Court on 14.09.1993
which is quoted below:-

"Sri Dilip Gupta has accepted
notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and
3. He prays for and is granted one month's
time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners'
will have three weeks' thereafter to file
rejoinder.

List this petition immediately
after expiry of the aforesaid period.

Meanwhile operation of the order
dated 27th July, 1993, Annexure No. 3 to
the writ petition shall remain stayed.
Petitioners shall be allowed to work on the
post of Mali and shall be paid salary."

3. The writ petition was dismissed
in default vide order dated 07.12.2011.
Restoration/Recall Application No. 2 of
2019
alongwith
Delay
Condonation
Application No. 1 of 2019 was filed by the
petitioner on 26.03.2019. The same were
allowed by this Court vide order dated
05.01.2023. By the aforesaid order, the
order dated 07.12.2011 was recalled and
the writ petition was restored to its original
number.

4. Though the writ petition was
dismissed in default on 07.12.2011, since
the parties did not have any knowledge of
the aforesaid order, the petitioner was
continued to work and also paid his salary
regularly and subsequent to the same he
was also superannuated from his services
after attaining the age of superannuation on
31st March, 2018. Before his retirement, a
letter dated 29.05.2017 was written by the
petitioner to the Vice Chancellor of the
University. In the aforesaid letter a request
has been made for confirmation of the
service of the petitioner so he could get
post retiral benefits. On the said application
an order dated 04.02.2019 was passed by
the Assistant Registrar (AdministrationNT) addressed to the Principal, S.T. High
School,
Aligarh
Muslim
University,
Aligarh. By the said letter, the request
made by the petitioner was turned down on
the ground that the writ petition was
dismissed in default vide order 07.12.2011
and thereafter a legal opinion was sought
for and pursuant to the same the application
4 All. Suleman Vs. Principal S.T. High School & Ors.
273
filed by the petitioner for his confirmation
and other retiral benefits was turned down.

5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid
an amendment application was filed by the
petitioner in this writ petition which was
numbered as Amendment Application No.
11 of 2023. The same was allowed by this
Court
vide
order
dated
06.11.2024.
Subsequent to the same the amendments
were duly incorporated in the writ petition
and an amended copy of the writ petition
was also filed. Counter affidavit and
rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged on
the amended writ petition and with the
consent of the parties the same was
disposed of finally at the admission stage
itself.

6. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the Principal of the
Institution in question, i.e., S.T. High
School,
Aligarh
Muslim
University,
Aligarh is the appointing authority to the
post of Mali. The Principal vide its order
dated 27.02.1991 appointed the petitioner
on the post of Mali for three months. The
aforesaid appointment was extended from
time to time by the Principal without any
break. The Principal in continuation of the
services, placed the petitioner on probation
for one year i.e. from 4.02.1992 till
03.02.1993, the petitioner was continuing
his services even after completion of his
probation period and there was no
interference in his work, no complaint was
there in the work and conduct of the
petitioner. It is argued that wholly illegally
and in arbitrary manner an order dated
27.07.1993 was passed by the Section
Officer on behalf of the Principal, S.T.
High School. It is argued that services of
the Class IV employees i.e. non teaching
employees are governed by "University
Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and
Conditions of Services) Rules, 1972. The
relevant rules in this regard namely Rule 11
and Rule 14 of the Rules, 1972 are quoted
hereinbelow:-

 11-
Probation
and
Confirmation:-

1.
Every
employee
of
the
University when appointed to a permanent
post shall be placed on probation for one
year unless. It is provided otherwise in the
contract, after the expiry of which he may
be confirmed in his post. If he is not so
confirmed,
the
Executive
Council,
appointing authority may, if it deems fit,
dispense with his services or extend the
period of probation, but in no case shall the
period of probation be extended beyond
two years, unless otherwise decided by the
Executive Council/ appointing authority in
the interest of university.

If for any reason the orders for
confirmation are not issued after the
stipulated period of probation, the period
of probation will be deemed to have been
automatically extended upto the date when
an order is issued in this behalf.

2. Where a person appointed to a
post under the University on probation is,
during his period of probation, found, on a
subjective consideration unsuitable for
holding that post or has not completed his
period of probation satisfactorily the
appointing authority may:-

(i) In case of a person appointed
by promotion, revert him to the post held by
him immediately before such appointment
and

(ii) In the case of a person
appointed by direct recruitment, terminate
his services under the University after
giving him one month's salary in lieu
thereof.

3. Every person appointed to a
permanent post under the University by
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
promotion or by direct recruitment shall,
on satisfactorily completing his period or
probation, be eligible for confirmation in
that post.

4.
No
employee
shall
be
confirmed in any post unless:-

(i) Such post is permanent and no
one else holds a lien on the post.

(ii) The service of the employee
under the University is approved by the
appointing authority.

7. Rule 14 relates to termination of
service which is quoted below:-

14- termination of services:-

(1) The service of a temporary
employee/ an employee on probation may
be terminated by the Executive Council/
appointing authority as indicated below:-

a. The services of an employee
appointed on probation can be terminated
any time during the probationary period by
giving one month's notice without assigning
any cause. The employee is also entitled to
relinquish his appointment after giving
one month's notice; and

b. The service of temporary
employee may be terminated at any time
without any notice or assigning any
reason.

C. The services of an employee
appointed who holds a permanent post
will automatically come to an end when
he reaches the age of superannuation and
not notice from the University Authorities
will be required informing him of the
termination
of
his
service
due
to
superannuation.

8. It is argued that the order dated
27.07.1993 is absolutely illegal and
without jurisdiction since the same has
not been passed by the competent authority.
It is further argued that impugned order has
been passed without any notice and
opportunity to the petitioner.

9. After the writ petition was
entertained an interim order was passed in
favour of the petitioner as stated above, the
Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim
University has approved the list to the
effect that the employees who are fulfilling
the requirement of training in their skill job
and
satisfactory
service
record
be
transferred from category D to category C
with
common
designation
as
"Multi
Tasking Staff" and the aforesaid persons
were placed in pay band-1 with Grade Pay
of Rs. 1800 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or from the
date of their appointment. In the said list,
the name of the petitioner was placed at
serial no. 34.

10. It is further stated that pursuant
of the office memo dated 03.02.2012, the
salary of the petitioner has been fixed by
the
respondents
vide
order
dated
28.07.2012. It is further stated that the
respondent-University has accepted the
recommendation of 7th Pay Commission
and in this regard the respondents duly
issued the statement of fixation of pay in
respect of the petitioner. The increment was
also paid to the petitioner in July, 2016.
After completion of successful service on
the post of Mali, the petitioner was retired
on 31.03.2018. It is further argued that
from the date of initial appointment till 31st
March, 2018, the petitioner was worked
regularly and got his salary. It is further
argued that all the benefits of services were
duly provided by the respondents to the
petitioner from time to time.

11. It is further stated that the effect
and operation of the termination order
dated 27.07.1993 had been stayed by this
Court vide its order dated 14.09.1993 and
4 All. Suleman Vs. Principal S.T. High School & Ors.
275
on the basis of the same, the petitioner
continued to work on the post of Mali and
getting his salary. In this view of the
matter, the writ petition is liable to be
allowed and the order dated 27.07.1993 is
liable to be quashed. In so far as the order
dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Assistant
Registrar
(Administration-NT)
is
concerned, the same was passed due to
dismissal of the writ petition in default on
07.12.2011. It is argued that since the
aforesaid order i.e. 07.12.2011 has already
been recalled, therefore the order dated
04.02.2019
passed
by
the
Assistant
Registrar is liable to be set aside and the
respondents be directed to pay all the post
retiral benefits to the petitioner, for which
the petitioner is legally entitled.

12. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf
of
respondent-University,
the
following objections has been raised:-

 1. Union of India has not arrayed
as respondent and in absence of the same,
the writ petition is not maintainable.

2. University Grants Commission
has not arrayed as one of the respondent
and
since
the
University
Grants
Commission is a Central Body having
supervisory jurisdiction and over the
University and other Higher Educational
Institutions in India.

3. Statutory alternative remedy is
available to the petitioner as provided
under section 36-B of Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh Act 1920.

13. Apart from the same it is
further stated in the counter affidavit that
one Mr. Kallan was working as 'Mali' in the
school. The petitioner had been appointed
on temporary basis as a 'Mali' in the
vacancy caused due to retirement of Mr.
Kallan with effect from 04.02.1991 for a
period of three months. The aforesaid
appointment was extended from time to
time.

14. It is further stated in the counter
affidavit that the Executive Council in its
meeting held on 16.11.1991 had clearly
resolved that the first claim of Group 'D'
posts should be that of the claimant for
appointment on compassionate ground. In
spite of the aforesaid the Principal of the
Institution in question placed the petitioner
on probation for a period of one year with
effect from 04.02.1992 till 03.02.1993
(wrongly
stated
as
04.02.1991
to
03.02.1993).

15. It is further stated in the counter
affidavit that it is obligatory on the part of
the Principal of the school to appoint a
dependent of deceased employee of the
University/School
on
compassionate
ground against the vacancy falling in Grade
'D'. However the petitioner was appointed
in place of Mr. Kallan who retired as 'Mali'
on 31.01.1991 and thereafter the salary of
the petitioner was released. It is further
stated in the counter affidavit that the
Principal of School was obliged to take
immediate steps to appoint a person on
compassionate ground.

16. It is further stated in paragraph
20 of the counter affidavit that the
petitioner started working and getting his
salary on the strength of an interim order
dated 14.09.1993 and he was continued in
service till 07.12.2011. Although the
interim order was not in operation after
07.12.2011, the date on which the writ
petition was dismissed by this Court but the
services of the petitioner could not be
dispensed with for the reason that the order
of the dismissal has not been brought into
knowledge of the University authorities by
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner and he continued in service
till he attained the age of superannuation. It
is further stated that the services of the
petitioner had not been confirmed till he
attained the age of superannuation i.e.
31.03.2018 and he retired from the
services as temporary employee.

17. It is further stated in the
counter affidavit that a letter dated
29.05.2017 was written by the petitioner
to the Vice Chancellor to confirm his
services in order to enable him to get all
the retiral benefits after his retirement but
the information with regard to the
dismissal of the case has not been
disclosed by him in the said letter. It is
further stated that after lapse of 11 years
from the dismissal of the writ petition and
after a lapse of almost 05 years from the
date of superannuation the restoration and
amendment applications were filed by the
petitioner which is sufficient to indicate
that the petitioner had slept over his
rights and it is settled principle of service
jurisprudence that one who slept over his
rights is not entitled for any relief. On the
basis of aforesaid it is argued that writ
petition was filed by the petitioner is
liable to be dismissed.

18. In response to the same it is
argued by Sri Anand Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner that after
completion
of
probation
period
on
03.02.1993, no orders has been passed
with regard to the further extension of
probation period hence the services of the
petitioner is deemed to be confirmed. It is
further argued that the petitioner has
continuously worked about 27 years and all
the service benefits have been given to him
during his service period hence after this
retirement he is entitled for all the post
retiral benefits.
19.
Insofar
as
preliminary
objections raised by the counsel for the
respondent-University are concerned, it is
argued that these objections were not raised
by the counsel for the respondents neither
at the initial stage when the interim order
was granted in favour of the petitioner nor
in the counter affidavit initially filed by the
University in response to the main writ
petition. It is further argued that after the
writ petition was duly amended, wholly
illegally preliminary objections has been
raised by the counsel for the University for
the first time vide its counter affidavit
which was filed on 13.11.2024 i.e. after
more than 21 years of filing on the writ
petition. It is further argued that once the
petitioner had worked in the strength of an
interim order granted by this Court and
thereafter all the service benefits was
provided to him and thereafter while
working
he
was
superannuated
on
31.03.2018 hence the order dated 27th July,
1993 passed by the Section Officer on the
instructions of Officers on Special Duty,
S.T. High School is liable to be set aside. It
is further argued that insofar as the order
dated 04.02.2019 is concerned the same is
also liable to be set aside only on the
ground that the order of dismissal of writ
petition dated 07.12.2011 has already been
recalled by this Court vide its order dated
05.01.2023 hence the sole basis of the order
dated 04.02.2019 is not in existence as on
date.

20. Heard counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

21. From perusal of record it is
clear that the petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of 'Mali' in the year
1991 on the said post he was continued to
work and thereafter he was appointed on
probation
period
for
one
year
i.e.
4 All. Suleman Vs. Principal S.T. High School & Ors.
277
04.02.1992 till 03.02.1993. Even after
completion of his probation period the
petitioner was permitted to continue but
thereafter
an
order
was
passed
on
27.07.1993 in which it is stated that the
services of the petitioner is no more
required after 31.07.1993.

22. The aforesaid order has been
stayed by this Court vide its order dated
14.09.1993 on the basis of which the
petitioner continued to work in the
institution and all the service benefits
provided to the similarly situated employee
were provided to him. While working in
the
institution,
the
petitioner
was
superannuated after attaining the age of
superannuation on 31st March, 2018. In
this view of the matter and especially in
view of the fact that the petitioner worked
with the respondents since the date of
initial appointment i.e. 27.02.1991 till the
date of his superannuation i.e. 31st March,
2018 and since all the service benefits were
provided to him, after more than 26 years,
the Court is of the opinion that at this stage,
the writ petition would not be dismissed.

23. Insofar as the preliminarily
objections raised by counsel for the
respondents are concerned it is clear from
the perusal of counter affidavit filed in
response to the writ petition (main writ
petition) that no such objections were
raised either at the initial stage when the
interim order was granted in favour of the
petitioner or in the counter affidavit
initially filed by the University in response
to the main writ petition. The aforesaid
objections were raised by counsel for
University for the first time while filing the
counter affidavit to the amended writ
petition on 13.11.2024 i.e. after more than
21 years of the filing of the writ petition. It
is settled law that in case the person has
worked for more than 25 years though on
the strength of interim order granted by this
Court and at no point of time during those
21 years no preliminary objection has been
raised by the University, these objections
are not sustainable in the eyes of law
especially after retirement of the petitioner.

24. This Court in the case of
Hridaya Shanker Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in 2005 SCC OnLine
All 1627 : 2005 All LJ 2654 taking into
consideration the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Agra
District
Cooperative
Bank
Ltd.
v.
Prescribed Authority Labour Court, U.P.
and Ors. has held that there may be
irregularity in the recruitment but the
reasons that a person being in employment
for more than 21 years the same stood
cured by their long service and he is
deemed to have been regularly appointed.
Paragraph No. 8 and 9 of the aforesaid
judgment reads as follows:-

 "8. The further reliance has been
placed by the petitioner in the case of
Division Bench of this Court reported in
(2001) 1 UPLBEC 622 State of U.P. v. Dr.
R.P. Goel and Ors. The Division Bench of
this
Court
while
considering
the
termination
of
the
employee
after
completing 19 years of service treating that
employee as a temporary employee, has
held that the services after 10 to 20 years
can be treated to be arbitrary. The Division
Bench has observed as under:-

"In the present case the petitioner
had worked from 1956 to 1975 i.e. for 19
years in U.P. Government service. In our
opinion, even if he was a temporary
employee, a person who has worked for
such a long period cannot be suddenly
asked to go for no rhyme or reasons. The
position may have been different if the
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
service of a temporary employee is
terminated only after two or three years of
appointment,
and
in
that
case
the
termination order may not be arbitrary.
However, where a person has worked in a
temporary capacity for say, 10 to 20 years,
in our opinion, the termination of his
service without opportunity of hearing
would certainly be arbitrary because such
an employee would ordinarily have got
married and have had children, and is
overage for other employment, and has
settled down in life with reasonable
expectation, that ordinarily he will be
continued in service till the age of
retirement."
9. Further reliance has been placed by the
petitioner in a judgment reported in
Judgment Today 2001 (4) Supreme Court,
382, Agra District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v.
Prescribed Authority Labour Court, U.P.
and Ors. and the Apex Court has observed
as follows-

"Though
the
services
were
terminated the parties concerned invoked
the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the
Labour court directed their reinstatement
and they were reinstated from the date of
the
termination
itself.
In
these
circumstances they must be deemed to be in
service for more than 20 years now and to
disturb their services at this stage would be
harsh and inhuman.

Even
though there
may
be
irregularity in the recruitment but the
reasons
of
respondents
being
in
employment for more than 20 years the
same stood cured by their long service and
they are deemed to have been regularly
appointed."

25. In case of OM PRAKASH
GOEL
Vs.
HIMACHAL
PRADESH
TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. SHIMLA reported
in (1991) 2 UPLBEC 967: ((1991) 3 SCC
291: AIR 1991 SC 1490, it has been held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court the temporary
employee has got the protection of Art. 311
of the Constitution. In N.S.K. Nair's case
the
Apex
Court
has
taken
into
consideration the fact that if a person has
completed 15 years of service in spite of
the fact that no order of confirmation has
been passed but it will be deemed to be
confirmed employee and the services of the
person concerned cannot be terminated
treating
the
petitioner
as
temporary
employee.

26.
The
petitioner
worked
continuously from 27.02.1991 until his
superannuation on 31.03.2018, a period of
approximately 27 years. During this period,
he received all service benefits that would
be accorded to a regular employee,
including salary increments, pay fixation as
per Pay Commission recommendations,
and even upgradation from Category D to
Category C.

27. Insofar as the objection
related to enable the petitioner to get
retiral dues after his retirement, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6118 OF 2024,
ANAND PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI
v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &
ORS., it was held that it is unfair to deny
them post retiral benefits or terminal dues
as may be admissible to the regular
government employees who have worked
for such a long period, Relevant portion
of the judgment paragraph 5 reads as
follows:-

 "Having considered the fact that
the appellant(s) have worked for such a
long period, it would be unreasonable and
unfair to deny them post retiral benefits or
4 All. M/S K. C. International Situate and Ors. Vs. Indian Bank Kanpur Main Branch
279
terminal dues as may be admissible
to the regular government employees,"

28. In case of State of Gujarat & Ors.
versus Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187. It has been held that
once State has continued to take service from an
employee even on an ad hoc basis for 30 years,
State cannot be permitted to take benefit of its
own wrong and no error. was found in
judgment of High Court directing payment of
pensionary benefit to the employee who retired
after rendering more than 30 years of service as
ad hoc without regularization.

29. Similarly, in another case of
Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India
and ors. reported in 1996 (7) SCC 113, it was
held that an employee who has served more
than 20 years is entitled to pension and denial of
retiring pension to the petitioner on the ground
of not being permanent on any post clearly is
violative of Clause (e) of Fundamental Rules,
56. The department cannot keep a person
temporary or on daily wages indefinitely.
Simiarly, in another case of A.P. Srivastava v.
Union of India and Ors. reported in (1995) 3
UPLBEC 1842 (Supplement), the Supreme
Court has clearly taken a view that in case of a
temporary employee who has rendered 20 years
of service is entitled to pension.

30. In view of aforesaid judgments, it
is clear that ad hoc/ temporary/ daily wage
employees rendering long years of service and
were permitted to superannuate without
regularization/confirmation
in
service
are
entitled to post retiral benefits. In this view of
the matter, the Court is of the opinion that since
the petitioner had rendered continuous service
for decades, it creates a legitimate expectation
for proper service benefits.

31. In the present case, the petitioner
worked continuously for 27 years until
superannuation. The University treated him as a
regular employee for all practical purposes,
providing him with all service benefits during
his tenure. To deny him post-retirement benefits
merely because he was not formally confirmed
would be unjust and contrary to the principles
established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this Court.

32. In view of the aforesaid, the Court
is of the opinion that the order dated 27.07.1993
passed by the Section Officer on behalf of the
Principal, S.T. High School, A.M.U. Aligarh,
and the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the
Assistant Registrar (Administration-NT) are
liable to be set aside and hereby set aside. The
petitioner is entitled to get the all post retiral
benefits, hence the respondents are directed to
treat the entire service period of the petitioner
from 27.02.1991 to 31.03.2018 as qualifying
service for the purpose of determining all postretirement benefits and also directed to calculate
and release all post-retirement benefits to the
petitioner within a period of three months from
the date of communication of this order.

33. With the aforesaid observations,
the present writ petition is allowed. No order as
to costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 279
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 263 of 2025

M/S K.C. International Situate & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Indian Bank Kanpur Main Branch
 ...Respondent