# Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 518
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 17495 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53397
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Unauthorized
Absence
-
Employee
of
Cooperative Bank - Incarceration in Jail pending
trial in false NDPS case - Acquittal.

Held: Where an employee was continuously
incarcerated in judicial custody during the
period alleged as unauthorized absence, the
charge of misconduct cannot stand. Service of
notices at his residential address, ignoring the
fact
of
incarceration
well
within
the
employer's knowledge, is no valid service and
vitiates the entire proceedings. Further,
dismissal from service for such absence,
despite honorable acquittal in the criminal
case, is perverse, arbitrary, and violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Order
of dismissal quashed. Petitioner directed to be
reinSt.d with continuity and seniority; entitled
to 50% back wages for the period of
incarceration till reinSt.ment.

Writ Petition Allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs U.O.I.& anr., (2012)
3 SCC 178.

## Text

518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 5 ILRA 518
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 17495 of 2024

Vinod Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Amit Verma, C.S.C., Satyam Singh

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Unauthorized
Absence
-
Employee
of
Cooperative Bank - Incarceration in Jail pending
trial in false NDPS case - Acquittal.

Held: Where an employee was continuously
incarcerated in judicial custody during the
period alleged as unauthorized absence, the
charge of misconduct cannot stand. Service of
notices at his residential address, ignoring the
fact
of
incarceration
well
within
the
employer's knowledge, is no valid service and
vitiates the entire proceedings. Further,
dismissal from service for such absence,
despite honorable acquittal in the criminal
case, is perverse, arbitrary, and violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Order
of dismissal quashed. Petitioner directed to be
reinSt.d with continuity and seniority; entitled
to 50% back wages for the period of
incarceration till reinSt.ment.

Writ Petition Allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs U.O.I.& anr., (2012)
3 SCC 178.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against
the order of the Secretary/ Chief Executive
Officer, Agra District Cooperative Bank
Limited, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Agra
dated 28.12.2023, dismissing the petitioner
from service, after holding disciplinary
proceedings.

2. The Agra District Cooperative
Bank Limited, Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Agra (for short, 'the Bank') is a Cooperative
Society
registered
under
the
U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short,
'the Act') and its rules. The conditions of
service of employees of the Bank are
governed by the provisions of The U.P.
Cooperative Societies Employees' Service
Regulations,
1975
(for
short,
'the
Regulations of 1975'). The petitioner was
appointed on 27.01.1996 on the post of a
Sahyogi. Ever since, he has remained in the
Bank's service continuously. On the 28th of
April, 2015, the petitioner was promoted as
Clerk-cum-Cashier. He asserts that his
work and conduct have been satisfactory
and unblemished. On the 5th of September,
2021, while the petitioner was travelling in
Kullu in the State of Himachal Pradesh, he
was apprehended and falsely implicated in
a criminal case by the Narcotics Control
Bureau (for short, 'NCB') under Sections 8,
20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short, 'NDPS Act'). He was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody, pending trial.

3. The case against the petitioner
was registered as Crime No.58 of 2021 for
offences punishable under Sections 20 and
29 of the NDPS Act. He was tried by the
Special Judge-I, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh
vide Case No.14 (24) of 2022 and acquitted
vide judgment and order dated 28.06.2024.
He
remained
incarcerated
in
Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh from 05.09.2021 to
5 All. Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
519
28.06.2024. The Special Judge-I,
Kullu, while acquitting the petitioner,
recorded a finding that the prosecution had
utterly failed to establish the charge against
the petitioner, and it would be highly
unsafe to return a finding of guilt, on the
basis of 'highly discrepant evidence led by
the prosecution'. While the petitioner was
in jail, he suffered a heart attack and was
admitted to the Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Rajkiya Ayurvigyan Mahavidyalaya and
Chikitsalaya, District Tanda. While still
incarcerated, the petitioner was dismissed
from service by the Bank, a fact of which
he was vicariously informed through his
family members at his residence. The
information, however, was not conveyed to
the petitioner on account of his medical
condition at the time the order was made.
On being released from jail, the petitioner
made inquiries with regard to the order of
dismissal. He has proceeded to institute the
present writ petition, challenging the order
of dismissal from service.

4. The petitioner's case is that while
he was in jail, the Authorities of the Bank,
treating his absence to be unauthorized,
issued notices dated 28.09.2021 and
06.12.2021. Later on, on the basis of what
was regarded as unauthorized absence from
duty,
disciplinary
proceedings
were
instituted against the petitioner and the
Deputy General Manager (Administration)
of the Bank appointed the Inquiry Officer.
The Inquiry Officer issued notices dated
14.02.2022, 08.03.2022, 15.03.2022 and
18.06.2022, requiring the petitioner to
participate in the departmental inquiry. It
appears that on 21.12.2021, a decision was
taken by the Committee of Management of
the
Bank
to
institute
departmental
proceedings against him vide Resolution
No.9 and an Inquiry Officer nominated.

5. The Inquiry Officer issued a
charge-sheet
to
the
petitioner
dated
18.06.2022, directing him to submit a
reply. The Inquiry Officer issued notices
dated
14.02.2022,
08.03.2022
and
15.03.2022, directing the petitioner to
participate in the departmental inquiry, but
the petitioner did not turn up. The Inquiry
Officer submitted his inquiry report on
18.06.2022.
The
Committee
of
Management, by their Proposal No.15
dated 17.01.2023, decided to publish news
of the petitioner's unauthorized absence. In
consequence, a press note dated 18.05.2023
was
published
in
the
newspaper
'Hindustan', directing the petitioner to
appear, but he did not turn up. The
Committee
of
Management,
through
Proposal No.9 dated 07.07.2023, decided to
terminate the petitioner's services and
forwarded
the
papers
to
the
U.P.
Cooperative Institutional Service Board
(for short, 'the Board') for prior approval of
the major penalty in accordance with the
Regulations of 1975. The Board, vide their
order dated 22.12.2023, granted approval.
The
impugned order, dismissing
the
petitioner from service, was then passed on
28.12.2023, which, the respondents say,
was made after full opportunity.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned
order dated 28.12.2023, the present writ
petition has been instituted under Article
226 of the Constitution.

7. A notice of motion was issued by
this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024. In
compliance, a counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of respondent No.3 by Mr. Satyam
Singh, learned Advocate and another
counter affidavit, on behalf of respondent
No.4, the Board, by Mr. Amit Verma,
Advocate.
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. On 10.12.2024, when this
petition came up, the parties having
exchanged affidavits, it was admitted to
hearing,
which
proceeded
forthwith.
Judgment was reserved.

9. Heard Mr. Siddharth Khare,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
Shivangi Singh, Advocate holding brief of
Mr. Satyam Singh, learned Counsel for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Sharad
Chandra
Upadhyay,
learned
Standing
Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.

10. This is a case where the
petitioner was not given an opportunity of
the slightest kind to meet the case against
him. The granting of opportunity becomes
complete after the opportunity offered at
various stages of proceedings comes within
the cognizance of the employee, and by his
circumstances then obtaining, the employee
is in a position to avail that opportunity to
defend himself. If opportunity is given to
answer
charges
in
a
disciplinary
proceeding, or at a stage prior to initiation
of proceedings by issue of notice to an
employee, to whom the notice cannot be
communicated for any reason, the issue of
notice or tendering of information does not
qualify as valid opportunity. Even if the
notice or information about a contemplated
or ongoing proceedings is received by the
employee, but he is not in a position, by his
circumstances, to come forward and
answer, then too, there is absolutely no
opportunity provided.

11. If one were to take the case of a
sick man, who is admitted to a hospital and
comatose, can it be said that a notice to
show
cause
against
a
proposed
departmental inquiry or the service of a
charge-sheet is granting him opportunity?
In the aforesaid illustration, the notice,
though physically delivered to the sick
man's bedside, is not within his cognizance.
There would be no opportunity. If notice
were delivered to an employee by service at
his residence, granting him opportunity to
show cause or answer the charge-sheet, but
the man has been abducted and held
hostage by any kind of outlaws, can it be
said that he has notice of the proceedings
against him? The answer is obviously in the
negative.

12. Apart from these extreme
illustrations, what we have in hand, is no
less, except for one feature. The fact that
the subject matter of the charge is
inextricably connected with the petitioner's
incarceration in prison pending trial, it
offers an emergent situation, where, the
petitioner would not be regarded as served
with the notices issued to him through his
relatives or publication in newspapers.
Even if the notices could be regarded
served vicariously through his relatives,
about whom, it may be said that they would
have met him in prison, a man in jail does
not have the capacity to come forward and
defend himself by answering notices at the
pre-inquiry stage, the charge-sheet issued
against him and produce evidence in
defence. Possibly, those acts could not have
been done by the petitioner, while in jail,
assuming that he would have notice of the
proceedings against him through his
relatives back home. The charges against
the petitioner, as these appear from the
impugned order, are two in number, to wit:

 "आरोप सां0-1-आप तदनाांक 06.09.2021 से
तबना तकसी सूचना के बैंक से पलातयि चल रहे हैं एवां बैंक
मुख्यालय के पत्राांक-2362-64/ प्रशासन/ 2021-22 तदनाांक
28.09.2021 व पत्राांक-3330-32/ प्रशासन/ 2021-22
तदनाांक 06.12.2021 के द्वारा आपको शाखा-ििेहपुर सीकरी
पर योगदान करने हेिु तनदेतशि तकये र्जाने पर भी आपके द्वारा शाखा
5 All. Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
521
पर योगदान नहीं तकया गया र्जो उ०प्र० सहकारी कमथचारी सेवा
तवतनयमावली, 1975 के प्रतविानों का उजलांघन है।

आरोप सां0-2- मुख्यालय के आदेश पत्राांक3708-11/ सतचव कक्ष/2021-22, तदनाांक 23.12.2021
के िम में आपको कायाथलय पत्राांक-4248-49/ प्रशासन/
2021-22
तदनाांक
14.02.2022,
460304/प्रशासन/2021-22 तदनाांक 08.03.2022 एवां 475961/प्रशासन/ 2021-22 तदनाांक 15.03.2022 र्जारी तकये
गये
तर्जनमें
कमशः
आपको
तदनाांक-24.02.2022,
14.03.2022 एवां 25.03.2022 को पूवाथन्द्ह 11:00 बर्जे
बैंक मुख्यालय पर उपतथिि होकर अपना पक्ष प्रथिुि करने हेिु
तनदेतशि तकया गया परन्द्िु आप उपरोक्त तितियों में कायाथलय में
उपतथिि नहीं हुए।"

13. A perusal of the charges against
the petitioner would show that the first
charge imputes to him the misconduct of
absenting from his duties unauthorizedly
from
Branch
Fatehpur
Seekri
w.e.f.
06.09.2021 and not joining duties despite
directions in that behalf dated 06.12.2021.
The other charge is about the petitioner's
failure to join his duties despite notices
dated
14.02.2022,
08.03.2022
and
15.03.2022, requiring the petitioner to join
his duties on 24.02.2022, 14.03.2022 and
25.03.2022, respectively. A perusal of the
notices dated 28.09.2021, 06.12.2021 and
the
later
notices
dated
14.02.2022,
08.03.2022 and 15.03.2022 would all show
that these notices were sent to the petitioner
at his residential address, described as
follows in each of these letters/ notices: Sri
Vinod Kumar Mishra, Li0/Cashier, Agra
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Branch Fatehpur
Seekri,
Address:
E-165,
Belanganj,
Kachauda Bazar, Agra.

14. The petitioner, during all this
while, was incarcerated in a jail in the State
of Himachal Pradesh, facing trial in the
criminal case under the NDPS Act brought
against him by the NCB. One fails to
understand how service of notice upon the
petitioner at his residential address would
be any good service. In paragraph No.21 of
the writ petition, there is a specific case
pleaded to the effect that the factum of the
petitioner's arrest was well within the
knowledge of the petitioner (an obvious
erroneous reference to the respondent) and
it is further asserted that intimation of the
fact had been duly given to the Authorities
of the Bank by the petitioner's family
members. In answering paragraph No.21 of
the writ petition, vide paragraph No.10 of
the counter affidavit, where paragraph
Nos.18 to 32 of the writ petition have been
answered, the fact that the respondents
were intimated by the petitioner's family
members that he had been arrested, has not
been denied. The assertions, therefore, in
paragraph No.21 of the writ petition, stand
admitted
by
non-traverse.
If
the
respondents were aware of the fact that the
petitioner had been arrested, it was their
duty to find out the circumstances of his
arrest and the place of incarceration. The
notices that were sent to the petitioner at
the pre-inquiry stage of proceedings, or
those asking him to join duties or the
charge-sheet they sent at his residential
address, should all have been served upon
the petitioner through the jailer of the
prison, where he was incarcerated. He
should then have been given opportunity
with permission of the jail authorities, if
their rules permitted and the jurisdiction to
grant such permission was exercised. If not,
the disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner ought have been deferred for a
reasonable
period
of
time.
The
departmental
proceedings
against
the
petitioner, including services of all notices,
service of charge-sheet and the show-cause
notice, seem to have proceeded 'turning a
Nelson's eye' to the fact that the petitioner
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was suffering incarceration all along in a
prison in Himachal Pradesh, pending trial.

15. Therefore, to impute to the
petitioner the failure to answer notices to
join the inquiry and defend himself, is a
view of the matter that is clearly perverse.

16. That apart, on the merits of the
charges as well, the entire gamut of
allegations, comprising the two charges
against
the
petitioner
is
about
his
unauthorized absence from 06.09.2021
until the conclusion of inquiry against him,
the report whereof was first considered in
the
meeting
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Bank on 17.01.2023.
The petitioner was released from prison on
28.06.2024. The order of dismissal had
been passed on 28.12.2023. The very terms
of the charge, imputing unauthorized
absence to the petitioner, when there is
judicial record to show that he was in
judicial
custody
pending
trial
from
06.09.2021 until 28.06.2024, that is, when
acquitted, knocks out the bottom of the
charge about unauthorized absence. The
findings of the Inquiry Officer and the
Disciplinary
Authority,
ignoring
from
consideration the fact that during the entire
period of absence, the petitioner was in
judicial custody, and, a fortiori, not in a
position to attend duties, renders the
findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as
the Disciplinary Authority, perverse.

17. The fact, that the petitioner was
in jail and subsequently acquitted, has not
been denied. What is of utmost importance
is the event in the trial on criminal charges,
in connection with which the petitioner
spent time in jail from 06.09.2021 to
28.06.2024. It is not just the event in the
trial that ended in a judgment of acquittal in
his favour, but the findings of the learned
Special Judge, acquitting him. The relevant
findings of the learned Special Judge,
carried in his judgment dated 28.06.2024
passed in Case No.14 (24) of 2022, NCB v.
Prashant Kumar @ Pankaj and another, are
of prime importance. These read:

"In the ultimate analysis, the only
inference which can be drawn in the case at
hand, is that the prosecution has utterly
failed to establish the charge against the
accused, as portrayed in the chargesheet,
and it would be highly unsafe to return
findings of guilt against the accused, on the
basis of the highly discrepant evidence led
by the prosecution."

18. The petitioner's time spent in
jail was apparently the handiwork of the
NCB in bringing utterly false and bogus
charges against him. The prosecution case
was rejected by the learned Special Judge
with all the contempt that it deserved. The
petitioner has been tried on charges that
were found to be utterly bogus and not
proved, which carry with it an element of
injustice at the hands of the law for the
petitioner. In such circumstances, to punish
the petitioner with dismissal from service
on no other charge, except unauthorized
absence, for the period that he was in jail
on
these
charges,
is
not
only
the
manifestation of an extremely perverse and
insensitive approach on the respondents'
part, but an instance of the most unfair and
arbitrary treatment meted out to the
petitioner by his employers, the Bank. The
fact that the impugned order does not take
note of the petitioner's incarceration in
prison in a case, where he was honourably
acquitted, shows a motivated approach by
the employer, from which, an inference of
mala fides, in fact, must be drawn. The fact
that the petitioner was facing criminal
charges and incarcerated in prison in
5 All. Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
523
Himachal Pradesh cannot be regarded a
fact that was not within the employer's
cognizance. In fact, the respondents have
never said that it was not in their
cognizance. They have simply chosen to
ignore it despite the fact being pleaded in
the writ petition and brought to their notice
by the family members. The ignorance of
the fact, that the petitioner was in jail
during the relevant period of time, is
apparently deliberate, betraying mala fides
on the part of the respondents.

19. In circumstances, that were far
more benign than those obtaining here,
their Lordships of the Supreme Court in
Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of
India and another, (2012) 3 SCC 178 had
before them an employee, who was
punished for unauthorized absence from
duty for three consecutive periods of time,
holding him guilty of the misconduct of not
maintaining devotion to duty and exhibiting
behaviour unbecoming of a government
servant. The employee's defence in that
case was that in the period of time that he
was imputed unauthorized absence from
duty, he was prevented from signing the
attendance register and performing his
duties by a particular officer of the
establishment. He led evidence about it,
which was not considered by the Inquiry
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority or the
Appellate Authority. On the charge of
unauthorized absence, the Court held that
the charge cannot be held proved, unless it
is established that the absence was willful
or
not
the
result
of
compelling
circumstances.
In
Krushnakant
B.
Parmar (supra), it was held by the
Supreme Court:

"16. In the case of the appellant
referring to unauthorised absence the
disciplinary authority alleged that he failed
to maintain devotion to duty and his
behaviour
was
unbecoming
of
a
government servant. The question whether
"unauthorised 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 wilful 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 wilful.
Absence from duty without any application
or prior permission may amount to
unauthorised absence, but it does not
always mean wilful. There may be different
eventualities due to which an employee
may
abstain
from
duty,
including
compelling
circumstances
beyond
his
control
like
illness,
accident,
hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the
employee cannot be held guilty of failure of
devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming
of a government servant.

18. In a departmental proceeding,
if allegation of unauthorised absence from
duty is made, the disciplinary authority is
required to prove that the absence is wilful,
in the absence of such finding, the absence
will not amount to misconduct.

19. In the present case the inquiry
officer on appreciation of evidence though
held that the appellant was unauthorisedly
absent from duty but failed to hold that the
absence
was
wilful;
the
disciplinary
authority as also the appellate authority,
failed to appreciate the same and wrongly
held the appellant guilty.

21. In the present case, the
disciplinary authority failed to prove that
the absence from duty was wilful, no such
finding has been given by the inquiry
officer or the appellate authority. Though
the appellant had taken a specific defence
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that he was prevented from attending duty
by Shri P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur
who prevented him to sign the attendance
register and also brought on record 11
defence exhibits in support of his defence
that he was prevented to sign the
attendance register, this includes his letter
dated 3-10-1995 addressed to Shri K.P.
Jain, JD, SIB, Ahmedabad, receipts from
STD/PCO office of telephone calls dated
29-9-1995, etc. but such defence and
evidence were ignored and on the basis of
irrelevant fact and surmises the inquiry
officer held the appellant guilty."

20. In Krushnakant B. Parmar,
their Lordships set aside the orders
rendered by the Disciplinary Authority, the
Appellate
Authority,
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal, the High Court
and
reinstated
the
petitioner.
They,
however, remarked that the matter was not
being
remitted
to
the
Disciplinary
Authority for further action, bearing in
mind the fact that the charged officer had
suffered a lot since commencement of
proceedings drawn in the year 1996. Now,
Krushnakant B. Parmar was a case
where the inquiry had been conducted,
committing procedural lapses or adopting
an erroneous approach, where the Inquiry
Officer and the Disciplinary Authority
failed to consider the petitioner's evidence
about his absence from duty and record a
finding if the absence was willful. That
might have required a remit of the matter to
the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider if
the circumstances were not very hard for
the employee, which their Lordships took
into consideration to put an end to all
proceedings against the employee.

21. The present case is one, which,
on the face of the record on facts, that are
admitted to the respondents, shows that the
sole
allegation
of
being
absent
unauthorizedly from duty for the relevant
period of time, and then, failure in
answering the notices issued to rejoin
duties,
is
belied
by
the petitioner's
irrefragable defence that during the period
of
time
charged
against
him
for
unauthorized absence, he was in judicial
custody in connection with a crime falsely
charged. He was honourably acquitted after
trial, holding the prosecution to be utterly
bogus. In these circumstances, to punish
the petitioner on the charge of willful and
unauthorized absence and not reporting for
duty, despite intimation, cannot be regarded
as a charge worth inquiry at all. No
proceedings ought have been drawn against
the petitioner. There is no case, in the
return filed before this Court by the
respondents,
which
may
show
any
blameworthy conduct on the petitioner's
part, that might still require the scrutiny of
a departmental inquiry, may be, on a lesser
or different charge. We think that the
petitioner has suffered enough and to
expose him to the vagaries of further
departmental proceedings, arising out of his
unauthorized absence due to incarceration
in jail, would be utterly arbitrary and
violative of his rights under Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution.

22. A question, that further merits
consideration in this case, is if for the
period of time that the petitioner has
remained out of service, should he receive
full emoluments or a part of it, or none at
all. The petitioner, for whatever reason, has
not served the respondents from 06.09.2021
to 28.06.2024. Nor could he have served
them during this period of time being in
jail, albeit for no fault of his, as now proven
by the judgment of the learned Special
Judge. In the entirety of circumstances, it
would be appropriate that he be paid 50%
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)