Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR,J.
Ompal Singh Irrigation Supervisor (Sinch Paryavekshak) – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 5027 of 2021
Decided on : 26-03-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Pension Law
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH RETIREMENT BENEFIT RULES : R.3(8)
KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES REGULATION OF PROMOTION PAY AND PENSION ACT : S.4(2), S.4(3), S.4(8)
Headnote
(B) Legislative power cannot override final judgments of courts; Mandamus cannot be nullified by subsequent legislation; Judicial authority remains superior. (Paras 16, 27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Irrigation Supervisor, sought pension re-fixation including 24 years of work charged service, which was denied by the Superintending Engineer citing the Ordinance. The petitioner had previously secured a mandamus for re-fixation in 2020, which was ignored. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed, mandamus issued to include work charged service for pension calculation, with costs awarded. (Paras 29, 30)
Issues: Whether the Superintending Engineer could nullify the mandamus based on the Ordinance; the validity of the Ordinance in overriding judicial decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: A mandamus that has become final inter partes cannot be nullified by legislative changes; the court reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers and the supremacy of judicial orders. (Paras 16, 27)
Result: Petition allowed with costs, mandamus issued to re-fix pension accordingly.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Atipriya Gautam,Gaurav Bishan,Lal Chandra Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.)
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims pension re-fixation considering all service years. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner sought compliance with prior mandamus; no response received. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court emphasizes finality of prior judgment; mandates compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. legislative changes cannot nullify final court judgments. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court reiterates legislative power cannot override judicial mandates. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. court quashes impugned order; mandates pension re-fixation. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Works Division-I, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Meerut, rejecting the petitioner’s claim to re-fix his pension, adding his services as a work charged employee to his regular service. The aforesaid claim is based on a mandamus of this Court issued in Writ-A No.14563 of 2018, decided on 14.02.2020. The basis to disregard the claim in enforcement of the mandamus is founded on the supervening promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020 (for short, 'the Ordinance'), which the Superintending Engineer says, nullifies the mandamus inter partes. The Ordinance has subsequently been replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (for short, 'the Act of 2021'), which carry provisions that are almost a replication of the Ordinance.
2. The petitioner was an Irrigation Supervisor in the Department of Irrigation, Water Resources. He was last posted in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Ganga Canal Division, Muzaffar Nagar. He retired from service on 31.07.2017 upon attaining the age of superannuation.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Chowkidar on 21.04.1980 by the Executive Engineer, Central Ganga Canal Division-II, Aligarh in the work charged establishment. He was appointed as a Work Supervisor vide order dated 28.04.1983 passed by the Executive Engineer. The Chief Engineer, Central Ganga Canal Project, Aligarh promoted the petitioner to the position of an Irrigation Supervisor (Seench Paryavekshak) and posted him in the regular establishment. By an order of 20th January, 2004, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Barrage Construction Division, Agra, the petitioner's services were regularized. He was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.4000- 6000/-. The petitioner was posted at the Barrage Construction Division, Agra at this time. The petitioner's salary was fixed by the Executive Engineer, Muzaffar Nagar Ganga Canal Division, Muzaffar Nagar vide order dated 31.01.2017 at a figure of Rs.38,100/-, adding to it the annual increment due on 01.07.2016. At the time of his retirement on 31.07.2017, the petitioner's last drawn salary was in the sum of Rs.39,200/-.
4. Upon the petitioner's retirement, his pension was wrongly fixed, as the petitioner says, reckoning only 13 years of service for him from the date of regularization, to wit, 20.01.2004 until his superannuation. The respondents did not take into account the 24 years service that the petitioner had rendered in the work charged establishment from the year 1980 to 2004.
5. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice it to say that the petitioner's gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension etc. were all reckoned on the length of service rendered post regularization. He was sanctioned a pension of Rs.10,187/- per month. The entire period of 24 years rendered in the work charged establishment was excluded for the purpose of computation of petitioner's qualifying service relating to grant of pension. The petitioner, finding the aforesaid stand utterly illegal, instituted Writ-A No.14563 of 2018 before this Court, praying that a mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to take into consideration the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the work charged e
