SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 1270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
U.P. Lekhpal Sangh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) Nos. 4660, 18159, 18197 of 2021, Writ (A) No. 42840 of 2015
Decided On : 26-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: S.K. Srivastava, Kailash Nath Singh, Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare, Krishnaji Khare, Shashibind Kumar Srivasatava.

Delays in appointing candidates due to state inaction invalidate their placement under the new pension scheme, permitting claims to the old scheme benefits.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 - Claim for Old Pension Scheme - Petitioners completed selection and training process before 01.04.2005, delaying appointment under the new scheme - Inordinate delay attributed to the State, thus entitled to benefits of Old Pension Scheme. (Paras 1, 4, 14, 17, 77, 136)

(B) Administrative Responsibility - Contestation of delays leading to substantial impact on rights of candidates - The State cannot deny benefits due to its inaction. (Paras 107, 120, 134)

Table of Content
1. common judgment for similar writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners' relief sought regarding old pension. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. the selection process for lekhpal positions began with recruitment ads in 1999 and culminated in extensive delays. (Para 13)
4. pension rule changes affecting petitioners. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19)
5. state's counter-arguments regarding pension applicability. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. court's observations on delays and responsibilities. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
7. analysing legal status of selection process. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
8. court's acknowledgment of past precedents. (Para 46 , 48 , 86 , 90)
9. claims to old pension considered just. (Para 89 , 91 , 93 , 124)
10. delay in the recruitment process unjustly placed candidates under the new pension scheme. (Para 118)
11. court mandates reinstatement of applicants to the old pension scheme due to extensive administrative delays. (Para 134)
12. final court decision in favor of petitioners. (Para 137)

JUDGMENT :

SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Since the controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petitions are identical, therefore, all writ petitions are being decided together with this common judgment.

3. For convenience, the facts are being delineated from Writ (A) No. 18197 of 2021.

4. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have prayed for the following relief:

    “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner Nos. 3 to 8 and similarly situated other Lekhpals whose selection and training were completed in the Session year 2003-04 upto August, 2004, prior to 01.04.2005 on the date enforcement of New Pension Scheme and same may be treated as governed by the Old Pension Rules.

    (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make a regular deduction towards General Provident Fund (under Old Pension Rules) instead of deduction in terms of new Pension Scheme regularly every month from the salary of the petitioners.

    (iii) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the end of justice.

    (iv) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.”

5. The facts in brief are that petitioner no. 1 is an organisation of the Government of Uttar Pradesh Employees (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sangh’) posted in the revenue department on the post of Lekhpal. The petitioner no. 2 being Treasurer has been authorised by the Sangh to file the present writ petition. The petitioners nos. 3 to 8 are also members of the Sangh and are working as Lekhpal in different districts and are entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition.

6. The post of Lekhpal is a Non-Gazetted Subordinate Service (Group-C) post and comes under the revenue department. The service conditions of the Lekhpal are governed by the U.P Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1958’).

7. It appears that the Board of Revenue wrote a letter to the District Magistrates of different districts to make the appointment for the post of Lekhpal. In pursuance of the said letter, the District Magistrates started selection proceedings and issued an advertisement in respect to their districts. An Advertisement No. 492/7-Bhulekh dated 04.02.1999 was issued by the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur inviting applications for selection for recruitment against 32 posts of Lekhpal in District Shahjahanpur. Similarly, the District Magistrate, Jaunpur issued an Advertiseme

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      Judicial Analysis

      AI

      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top