Back
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR
Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division – Appellant
Versus
Amar Nath – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Applications filed in Special Appeal Defective Nos.464 of 2023 and 484 of 2023
Learned counsel for the opposite party-petitioners states that he is not inclined to file any objection to the delay condonation application and he has no objection in case delay condonation applications are allowed.
2. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation applications, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing Special Appeals, the delay condonation applications are allowed. Both the appeals are treated to have been filed well within time.
Re: Memo of Special Appeals
3. Heard Sri. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. B.S. Pandey, Sri. Sundeep Agarwal and Sri. Siddharth Khare, learned counsels for the respondents-petitioners.
4. These Special Appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 28.3.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No.6069 of 2019 (
The court ruled that arbitrary rejection of absorption applications based on age and literacy violates constitutional rights, mandating equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
Services rendered as a daily wager employee cannot be counted for pension/quantum of pension, but after regularization, the employee cannot be denied pension for not completing the qualifying service....
Services rendered as muster roll employees are eligible for pension benefits under U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, regardless of subsequent regularization dates.
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
Inaction by the State in not regularizing long-serving employees cannot deprive them of valid pension benefits under existing rules, irrespective of completed qualifying service requirements.
State delays in regularizing services do not justify withholding pension benefits for long-serving employees; equal treatment and fair engagement practices must be upheld.
Petitioners, appointed on compassionate grounds, are entitled to regular pay scales and benefits consistent with earlier court decisions, regardless of the delay in their applications.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
