Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Rambachan Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 18067 of 2024
Decided On : 17-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ashok K. Pandey, Shrish Kumar Jaiswal
For the Respondent: Santosh Kumar Singh

Service periods before regularization can impact pension eligibility, but total qualifying service of 20 years is mandatory per specific retirement rules.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Non-Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011 - Uttar Pradesh Town Planning and Development Act, 1973 - Legal interpretation of qualifying service for pension and entitlement to benefits was explored. The Supreme Court precedent established that services rendered as work-charged or daily wagers can be factored in for pension eligibility if they lead to regularization. (Paras 15, 17, 18)

(B) Rule interpretation - Courts must adhere to statutory guidelines and past decisions unless the statute's validity is challenged. All parties to a dispute should receive consideration according to binding precedents, especially in pension matters. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a daily wager, was appointed on 06.08.1988, retrenched on 10.03.1993, and later had his retrenchment quashed, resulting in delayed service regularization. His application for pension benefits post regularization was denied based on insufficient qualifying service time.

Findings of Court:
The denial of pension benefits was upheld due to the lack of completion of the qualifying service of 20 years required by Rules, 2011, despite the past service record.

Issues: The court considered whether daily wage service qualifies towards pension and the application of pension rules to the petitioner’s case.

Ratio Decidendi: It was ruled that since the petitioner had not accumulated the necessary qualifying service post-regularization, the relief sought could not be granted due to strict adherence to the Retirement Rules, therefore limiting pension eligibility.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. retrenchment and reinstatement processes. (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. contempt petitions and compliance of orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 8)
3. qualifying service criteria under retirement rules. (Para 5 , 11 , 14)
4. petitioner's claims for pension benefits based on prior service (Para 7)
5. respondents' assertions against the petitioner's claims (Para 10)
6. interpretation of rules regarding service qualification. (Para 15 , 18)
7. disposal of writ petition and remedies available. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar as a Daily Wager with Gorakhpur Development Authority on 06.08.1988. He was retrenched by an order dated 10.03.1993, therefore, he filed Writ-A No. 25931 of 1993, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.05.1993 with liberty to represent before concerned authority against order of retrenchment with further direction that said representation be decided by a reasoned and speaking order.

2. It is the case of petitioner that thereafter he has filed an application against order of retrenchment, however, no decision was taken, therefore, he has filed a contempt petition which was disposed of to consider the case of petitioner. Still thereafter representation of petitioner was not considered, therefore, he has filed a fresh writ petition being Writ-A No. 26246 of 1994. Said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 17.05.1999 and impugned order dated 10.03.1993 as well as orders dated 10.11.1993 and 31.03.1994 were quashed and a direction was passed that petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits of service with payment of arrears of salary w.e.f. 10.03.1993. A further direction was passed to consider the services of petitioner for regularization.

3. Gorakhpur Development Authority again failed to follow the direction referred above, therefore, petitioner filed a contempt petition and finally the order dated 17.05.1999 was complied on 22.09.2003 and petitioner joined after a decade of his order of retrenchment.

4. It is further case of petitioner that later on he has moved an application on 24.12.2010 to allow him to join as regular employee and he placed reliance on an Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2010. Said Office Memorandum is not annexed alongwith the writ petition.

5. Petitioner thereafter transferred from Gorakhpur Development Authority to Azamgarh Development Authority on 22.10.2014 and he joined at his transferred place and attained age of superannuation on 30.04.2024. During period of service, an Authority of Azamgarh Development Authority issued a communication dated 09.03.2015 to Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Azamgarh to allow petitioner and other employees to open their respective pension fund account.

6. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no. 2 & 3 to pay the retiral benefit of the petitioner including the pension and other consequential benefits in accordance to the Rule Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Non-Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents-authority to count his services as daily wagers prior to his regularization and fix pension with consequential benefits accordingly the Rule Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Non-Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011.

3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 22.07.2024 moved by the petitioner. (ANNEXURE NO. 7 to this Writ Petition).

4. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstance of the case.

5. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners.”

7. This Court has passed following order on 19.11.2024:

“(Order on the