The court affirmed that no vested rights arise from erroneous retrospective regularization, and recovery from Class-IV employees for excess payments is impermissible under the law.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Shri Jitendra Singh and Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Shri Rishabh Kapoor, Shri Madhav Om, Advocate holding brief of Shri Samir Om and Shri Ankit Singh, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Jal Nigam.

2. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties contend that the issue involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions is same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear and decide all the writ petitions together by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of WRIT - A No. - 17904 of 2020 are being taken into consideration.

3. Instant writ petition (WRIT - A No. - 17904 of 2020) has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 18.08.2020 passed by the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 20.08.2020 passed by the Opposite Party No. 4 contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

(III) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties not to give effect of the impugned orders dated 18.08.2020 and 20.08.2020 passed by the Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 & 4 contained as Annexure No. 1, 2 & 4 to the writ petition.

(IV) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to continue to make payment of salary and other service benefits regularly every month including future post-retiral dues and pension as and when it becomes due ignoring the imugned orders to the petitioners No. 1 to 227 and 2870.

(V) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to continue to make paymet of pension/family pension along will all other post- retiral dues as and when it becomes due to the petitioners no. 2272 to 2869 ignoring the impugned orders."

4. As per the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the petitioners of the instant writ petition and other connected writ petitions can be divided into three categories namely:-

(A) the petitioners who have retired prior to passing of the impugned orders dated 18.08.2020 & 20.08.2020 and have received their retiral dues and are in receipt of pension.

(B) the petitioners who have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation during pendency of the instant writ petition and (C) the petitioners who are in service.

5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that all the petitioners, were initially appointed on daily wages basis/muster roll/work charge basis in the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (In short "Nigam") and were continuing to work in the same capacity when in pursuance to the Government order dated 12.04.2011, a copy of which is annexure 15 to the writ petition, which directed for regularization of the services of the persons like the petitioners with immediate effect, were regularized vide order dated 26.04.2011 issued by the Nigam, a copy of which is annexure 16 to the writ petition. In pursuance to the order dated 26.04.2011, the pay of the petitioners were fixed w.e.f completion of five years of continuous service after their appointment as specified in paragraph 6 of the order dated 26.04.2011 but were not granted any arrears on account of the said fixation up to 11.04.2011.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties that at the time of filing of the writ petitions, the Nigam was one unit but subsequent thereto, it has been bifurcated into Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Urban and Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Rural. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the contesting parties that the said bifurcation would not make any difference to the orders impugned.

7. Subsequent to the said orders and prio