# Suresh Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 525
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 46867 of 2014
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-chandra-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53399
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Service Law - Pension - U.P. Nagar Palika
Non-Centralised
Services
Retirement
Benefit Regulations, 1984 - U.P. Qualifying
Services for Pension and Validation Act,
2021 - Reckoning of service rendered as
Daily Wager towards qualifying service for
pension. Petitioner, appointed as a daily
wager in Nagar Nigam, in 1985, was
illegally terminated in 1986. By award of
Labour Court termination was set aside
and his services were directed to be
treated as continuous. He was reinstated,
later regularized in 2006, and retired in

## Text

5 All. Suresh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
525
of the emoluments, to which he
was entitled for the period of his absence
from duties on account of his incarceration,
followed by dismissal from service.

23. In the circumstances, this writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order dated 28.12.2023, passed
by the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer
of the Bank, is hereby quashed. The
petitioner shall be reinstated in service
forthwith with consequential benefits of
continuity and seniority. He will be paid his
current salary forthwith. The petitioner will
be entitled to receive 50% of his
emoluments since the date his emoluments
have not been paid until reinstatement in
service.

24. There shall be no order as to
costs.

25. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Secretary/ Chief
Executive
Officer,
Agra
District
Cooperative
Bank
Limited,
Mahatma
Gandhi Marg, Agra, the Chairman, Agra
District
Cooperative
Bank
Limited,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Agra and the
Secretary, U.P. Cooperative Institutional
Service Board, Lucknow by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 525
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 46867 of 2014

Suresh Chandra Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Srinath
Dwivedi,
Ms.
Harshita
Raghuvanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Sri Vivek Varma,
Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay (S.C.)

Service Law - Pension - U.P. Nagar Palika
Non-Centralised
Services
Retirement
Benefit Regulations, 1984 - U.P. Qualifying
Services for Pension and Validation Act,
2021 - Reckoning of service rendered as
Daily Wager towards qualifying service for
pension. Petitioner, appointed as a daily
wager in Nagar Nigam, in 1985, was
illegally terminated in 1986. By award of
Labour Court termination was set aside
and his services were directed to be
treated as continuous. He was reinstated,
later regularized in 2006, and retired in
2019. His claim that entire service from
1985 be reckoned for seniority, pension
and retiral benefits was rejected. Held :
Only issue surviving post-retirement is
whether entire service rendered by the
petitioner as a Daily Wager is to be
credited to his account to work out his
pension or that period of time is to be
reckoned towards his qualifying service
alone in order to enable him to pension
and other post-retiral benefits. Court held
that service rendered outside the regular
establishment
can
only
be
accorded
weightage to the extent that it entitles the
petitioner to grant pension and other
post-retiral benefits. It cannot be added to
his regular service to work out his pension
and
other
post-retiral
entitlement.
Mandamus issued directing respondents
to reckon petitioner's daily wage service
from 19.02.1985 to 26.01.2006 as a Daily
Wager for the purpose of qualifying
service,
though
not
counting
those
services for quantifying the entitlement
either to pension or other post-retiral
benefits for qualifying service towards
pension; arrears with 6% interest directed
to be paid within three months. (Para 15,
16)

Allowed. (E-5)
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition is directed against an
order passed by the Apar Nagar Ayukt,
Nagar Nigam, Allahabad (now Prayagraj)
dated 28.07.2014, rejecting the petitioner's
claim for reckoning his services, rendered
as
a
daily-wager
continuously
since
19.02.1985, towards his qualifying service
as a second grade Clerk for entitlement of
pension and other retiral benefits. The
petitioner has prayed that a mandamus be
issued, directing the respondents to fix his
seniority in the grade of second grade
Clerk, taking into account the period of
service rendered by him from 19.12.1985
to
26.01.2006,
i.e.,
before
he
was
regularized.

2. The petitioner was appointed in
the Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj as a Class-III
employee on daily wages with effect from
19.12.1985. He was discharging his duties,
as he says, to the full satisfaction of his
superiors and with sincerity. His services
were terminated without the issue of a
show cause notice vide order dated
10.12.1986. He was neither given a chargesheet nor retrenchment compensation. The
petitioner along with other employees, who
were similarly terminated, lodged a claim
under the Industrial Disputes Act, which
was referred to the Labour Court. The
Labour
Court,
by
its
award
dated
08.12.1989, found the termination of the
petitioner's services, like others similarly
circumstanced, illegal and set it aside. It
was
directed
that
the
petitioner
be
reinstated with arrears of salary and other
consequential benefits. The award also
directed that the petitioner's services will be
continuous and there will be no break. The
Labour Court's award appears to have
attained finality with no challenge laid to it
by the respondents.
3. In compliance with the award,
the petitioner was allowed to join duties as
a daily-wager on 27.11.1993. He was paid
his wages/ salary from 10.12.1986 to
26.11.1993, i.e., for the period of break in
service
on
account
of
the
illegal
termination, that was set aside by the
Labour
Court.
The
petitioner
was
regularized in service with effect from
27.01.2006 as a Class-III employee. The
petitioner's regularization was made after
selection
by
a
selection
committee,
constituted in accordance with rules. He
was confirmed in service as a second grade
clerk vide order dated 07.07.2008. The
confirmation too came after scrutiny by the
selection committee. The services of the
petitioner from 19.02.1985 to 26.11.1993
were not reckoned for giving him seniority
and promotion as well as consequential
benefits, to which he was entitled on the basis
of length of service. Accordingly, the
petitioner instituted Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 54282 of 2000 before this Court, seeking
a direction for the regularization of his
services as a clerk in the Electricity
Department of the Nigam, treating his date of
appointment as 19.02.1985 and to pay his
salary with all consequential benefits. This
Court, vide order dated 15.12.2004, held that
the petitioner, in view of the Labour Court's
award, was entitled to consequential reliefs
with back-wages as well as fixation of his
seniority in the list of daily-wagers with
effect from the date he was initially appointed
i.e. 19.02.1985. It was, however, opined that
since persons, who are likely to be affected
by the relief of seniority, were not impleaded,
the Court was not minded to issue a direction
to that effect. Accordingly, the writ petition
was allowed in terms of the following orders
:

 The Writ Petition is consequently
allowed to the extent that respondents shall
5 All. Suresh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
527
refix his seniority, after publishing a notice
inviting objections from all sides. This
order shall not affect the regualization of
those
persons,
who
have
already
regularized. His seniority shall be fixed
accordingly. The back wages shall be paid
to the petitioner. The order shall be
complied with within three months from
the date of communication of this order.

4. The seniority list of daily-wagers
was published, in which the petitioner's
name figured at serial No.16, showing the
date of his appointment as 27.11.1993. The
case of the petitioner is that a perusal of the
seniority list for the daily-wagers of the
year 1988-89 indicates that the petitioner,
though taken back in service in compliance
with the award of the Labour Court dated
08.12.1989, that directs his services to be
reckoned as continuous, in fact does not
give effect to that part. His services were
regularized
on
27.01.2006,
without
considering the award dated 08.12.1989
and the orders of this Court dated
15.12.2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 54282 of 2000.

5.
The
petitioner
moved
an
application on 13.09.2013 to the Nagar
Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, putting
forward a claim to include the period of his
service from 19.02.1985 to 26.01.2006 for
the purpose of fixation of seniority and other
consequential benefits. A tentative seniority
list was published in the year 2013-14, where
the petitioner's name finds place at Serial No.
26. Objections were invited to the said list
vide memo dated dated 15.01.2014 issued by
a Section Officer on behalf of the Nagar
Nigam. The petitioner objected vide his
objections/ letter dated 18.01.2014, taking a
case that the award of the Labour Court and
this Court's order had not been given effect to
in the matter of fixation of his seniority, in
that, that his services with effect from
19.02.1985 had not been reckoned. A final
seniority list was published, where the
petitioner's services from 19.02.1985 to
26.01.2006 were not taken into consideration.
It is the petitioner's case, if his services were
taken into reckoning from 19.02.1985, he
would stand at serial No.4 of the seniority
list. The petitioner's representation was
rejected by the Apar Nagar Ayukt, Nagar
Nigam,
Prayagraj
vide
order
dated
28.07.2014, conveying a decision of the
Nagar Ayukt in this regard.

6. It is said in the order, rejecting the
petitioner's representation, that the direction
of this Court to fix his seniority with effect
from 19.02.1985, was with regard to the
seniority list of daily-wage clerks, whereas
the petitioner has claimed seniority with
effect from 19.02.1985 as a regular second
grade clerk.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated
28.07.2014, this writ petition has been
instituted.

8. A notice of motion was issued on
08.09.2014. In course of time, parties have
exchanged affidavits. By an amendment
application
made
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner, that was allowed on 13.03.2014,
certain facts, grounds and prayer have been
added, which show that the petitioner has
retired from service on 31.12.2019. The
case, that has now been put forward more
explicitly through the amendment, is that
his
services
since
19.02.1985
till
31.12.2019, i.e., about 35 years, which
include his services as a daily-wager, be
taken into reckoning for the purpose of
qualifying service, entitling him to pension
and other post-retiral benefits. A relief in
this regard has also been added by
amendment.
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9.
Parties
having
exchanged
affidavits, the petition was admitted to
hearing on 07.11.2024, which proceeded
forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

10. Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioner Mr. Srinath Dwivedi, Mr. Harsh
Vardhan Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr.
Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing
Counsel on behalf of the State-respondent
No.1.

11. Now that the petitioner has retired
from service, the issue about the fixation of his
seniority in the cadre of regular second grade
clerks does not survive. What really survives
for determination is if the petitioner is entitled
to reckon the period of service from
19.02.1985 to 26.01.2006, when he was
regularized in service, after selection in
accordance with rules, towards his qualifying
service for entitlement to pension and other
post-retiral benefits.

12. Though much was argued on both
sides, if the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Services
for Pension and Validation Act, 20211 nullify
the principles laid down by the Supreme Court
in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others2, we are of opinion that the principles
in Prem Singh (supra) would apply to the
case of daily wagers like the petitioner,
regularised in the non-centralised services of
the Nagar Palika. The right of an employee
serving in a Nagar Palika in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, not belonging to the centralised
service, to receive post-retiral benefits, is
governed by the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika
Non-Centralised Services Retirement Benefit
Regulations, 19843.

13. I had occasion to consider this
point in Ram Sewak Yadav v. State of
U.P. and others4, where it was held :
 15.
Now,
the
definition
of
'qualifying service' in Regulation 2(m) of
the Regulations of 1984 is almost cast in
the same terms as that in Rule 3(8) of the
Rules of 1961, that were read down by the
Supreme Court in Prem Singh to hold that
services rendered in the work-charged
establishment
would
be
treated
as
'qualifying
service'
under
the
last
mentioned Rules for the purpose of grant of
pension. The principle in Prem Singh, to
reckon continuous service in the workcharged
establishment
as
'qualifying
service' under Rule 3(8) of the Rules of
1961, has been extended in its application
to continuous service of any kind, such as
those rendered on daily-wages or ad hoc
basis, followed by regularization, on the
same post and in the same capacity. These
principles have been adopted, particularly,
in case of long retention in service on
daily-wages or ad hoc basis or workcharged
establishment,
followed
by
regularization. Without reference to much
authority on this point, it would suffice to
refer to a decision of this Court in Kallu
Ali v. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (4)
AWC 3840, a case relating to an employee
of a Development Authority, who had
worked for a long time on daily-wages and
then regularized in service. The issue had
arisen in Kallu Ali (supra) in the context of
his qualifying service for the purpose of
entitlement to pension. After a copious
review of authority on the point in Kallu
Ali, it was held:

"28. The authorities referred to
herein above and those of this Court clearly
hold that if an employee has discharged
duties whether temporarily or as a daily
wager or on ad hoc basis on a post for
which requirement was there and services
of such an employee have come to be
regularized on the said post or in the same
capacity,
the
period
spent
before
5 All. Suresh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
529
regularization should be considered and
added to pensionable services. The courts
have not approved the act and conduct of
the employer to deny pension to its
employee if he has rendered a number of
substantial year of continuous service in an
establishment
leading
to
his
/
her
regularization if such an establishment
holds a pensionable service. The State
Government has been taken to be a model
employer and a State being a welfare State,
the courts have shown serious concern in
the event an employee who has spent all his
life in the service of such establishment,
stands denied pension on his attaining the
age of superannuation and being retired as
such."

16. The line of decisions noticed
in Kallu Ali and the extension of the
principle to various classes of employees,
who had worked outside the regular
establishment followed by regularization,
asking their service rendered dehors the
rules to be reckoned for the purpose of their
qualifying
service,
entitling
them
to
pension etc., are all based on the principle
in Prem Singh. In the opinion of this
Court, this line of decisions would pose
some difficulty in cases of employees of
establishments of the State Government, to
which the Act of 2021 applies and which,
as said earlier, virtually upturns the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court
in Prem Singh. This would, however, not
be the case about establishments, to which
the Act of 2021 does not apply. It has
already been noticed that there is no issue
in this case that the Act of 2021 does not
apply to the respondents. What, therefore,
follows is that the law laid down in Prem
Singh
would
govern
the
rights
of
employees
in
the
respondents'
establishment. The decisions that have
followed and extended the principle in
Prem Singh to classes of employees
functioning dehors the rules followed by
regularization for the purpose of reckoning
their qualifying service, entitling them to
pension, would squarely apply to the
petitioner's case.

17. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the
reckoning of his services rendered on ad
hoc basis w.e.f. 02.09.1988 until his
regularization in service on 26.03.2006 for
the purpose of determining his post retiral
benefits. The respondents have committed
a manifest error in not taking into account
the period of service rendered on ad hoc
basis prior to regularization for the purpose
of determining the petitioner's pension,
gratuity and other post retiral benefits.
These have to be determined taking into
account the entire period of service,
including that rendered on ad hoc basis
prior to regularization.

14. The only difference in the present
case and Ram Sewak Yadav (supra) is
that in Ram Sewak Yadav, the employee
was retained as an ad hoc employee for a
long period of time with effect from
02.09.1988 until his regularisation in
service on 02.03.2006, whereas, in the
present case, the petitioner was retained as
a Daily Wager from 19.02.1983 until
26.01.2006, when he was regularised. The
retention outside the regular establishment
on a continuous basis for along period of
time, followed by regularisation in service
and absorption in the regular establishment,
is key to the principle laid down by the
Supreme Court in Prem Singh to entitle
the employee to reckon his services
rendered outside the regular establishment
for the purpose of entitlement to post-retiral
benefits. Then, it does not matter whether
the
services
rendered
outside
the
establishment were ad hoc, daily rated,
work charged or of some other description.
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The only question that now
survives for consideration is if the entire
service rendered by the petitioner as a
Daily Wager is to be credited to his account
to work out his pension or that period of
time is to be reckoned towards his
qualifying service alone in order to enable
him to pension and other post-retiral
benefits. The answer to this question is
unmistakable that service rendered outside
the regular establishment can only be
accorded weightage to the extent that it
entitles the petitioner to grant pension and
other post-retiral benefits. It cannot be
added to his regular service to work out his
pension and other post-retiral entitlement.
In this connection, the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Uday Pratap Thakur v.
State of Bihar and others5 and connected
matters, places the matter beyond cavil. In
Uday Pratap Thakur (supra), it was held :

 23. Now, insofar as the reliance
placed upon the decision of this Court in
the case of Prem Singh (supra) by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants is concerned, the reliance placed
upon the said decision is absolutely
misplaced. In the said case, this Court was
considering the validity of Rule 3(8) of the
U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, under
which the entire service rendered as work
charged was not to be counted for
qualifying service for pension. To that, this
Court has observed and held that after
rendering service as work charged for
number of years in the Government
establishment/department, denying them
the pension on the ground that they have
not completed the qualifying service for
pension would be unjust, arbitrary and
illegal. Therefore, this Court has observed
and held that their services rendered as
work charged shall be considered/counted
for qualifying service. This Court has not
observed and held that the entire service
rendered
as
work
charged
shall
be
considered/counted for the quantum of
pension/pension. The decision of this Court
in the case of Prem Singh (supra),
therefore, would be restricted to the
counting of service rendered as work
charged for qualifying service for pension.

16. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and stands allowed. A mandamus
would issue to the respondents, ordering
them to ensure, amongst themselves,
sanction and payment to the petitioner his
retirement pension and other-post-retiral
benefits, taking into account the services
rendered by him from 19.02.1985 to
26.11.2006 as a Daily Wager for the
purpose of qualifying service, though not
counting those services for quantifying the
entitlement either to pension or other postretiral benefits. The entire arrears of
pension and other due post-retiral benefits
shall be determined within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of this
order and current pension shall be paid
regularly. The arrears of pension shall carry
simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date the petitioner retired from
service until the payment of arrears. The
other post-retiral benefits payable shall also
carry interest at the same rate, payable from
the date of the petitioner's retirement until
disbursement.

17. There shall be no order as to
costs.

18. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam,
Prayagraj and the Additional Municipal
Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj,
both through the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Allahabad.
5 All. Smt. Krishna Kant Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
531
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 531
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 49169 of 2010

Smt. Krishna Kant Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashok K. Jaiswal, Ashok Khare, Shesh
Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.K. Verma

A. Service Law - Service Jurisprudence -
Disciplinary Proceedings - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules,
1999,
Rule
7(3)
-
Prolonged
Unauthorized
Absence
-
Principle of "Test of Prejudice" in Service
Jurisprudence
-
Even
if
procedure
prescribed is not strictly followed to
award major punishment, the delinquent
has to show how he is prejudiced -
Punishment order is not vitiated unless
the
delinquent
shows
prejudice
in
defending
himself
properly
and
effectively,
and
if
no
prejudice
is
established, no interference is called for.
(Para 11)

B. Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher,
charge-sheeted
for
prolonged
unauthorized absence for a period of 5
years,
without
any
information
or
application
for
leave
-
In
inquiry
petitioner was not able to produce any
document
which
could
explain
his
absence - Major penalty of dismissal
was passed - Petitioner argued that no
inquiry report was submitted - State
argued that petitioner did not submit
any reply to charge-sheet or showcause notice despite publication in
newspaper, and no explanation for
absence was provided. Held: Even if
procedure prescribed was not strictly
followed, the delinquent has to show
how he is prejudiced. It is not a case
where oral evidence was required, the
only requirement was that petitioner
had to submit her explanation and
reasons for her absence of 1220 days -
Petitioner did not deny the allegation;
there was substantial compliance with
the principle of natural justice as she
was given opportunity to submit her
reply, however, no reply was submitted
despite publication in newspaper
-
Petitioner did not deny her absence of
1220 days even vaguely, no document
such as sanction of leave or application
for leave or medical certificate was
placed on record, therefore, there was
no
prejudice
caused
to
her
-
Punishment
not
disproportionate,
considering the nature of allegation.
(Para 12, 13)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Lal
Mani, learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. The petitioner, an Assistant
Teacher, was served with a charge-sheet
that from 01.07.2004 to 18.05.2009 i.e. in a
period of 5 years, she remained absent for
1220 days without any information or
application for leave. An inquiry was
conducted and since petitioner was not able
to produce any document which could
explain his absence, a major penalty of
dismissal was passed by an order dated
02.06.2010 by District Basic Education
Officer, Jalaun, impugned in present case.