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

2025 Supreme(All) 3689

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Manoj Kumar Mishra - Petitioner 
Versus
State of U.P. And another - Respondents 
WRIT - A No. - 16556 of 2024 
Decided On : 01-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents: Suresh C. Dwivedi, C.S.C.

Delay in issuing regularization orders does not negate legal entitlements to old pension benefits accrued prior to the new pension scheme implementation.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966 - Rule 21-A - Pension and gratuity - Petition for mandamus to fix pension and gratuity based on service from 07.03.1995 to 30.06.2024, including ad hoc service period - Delay in regularization order issued on 11.10.2006 which affected pension eligibility under the old pension scheme. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 17, 24)

(B) Legal entitlement - Court affirmed the principle that the delay by the respondents in regularization does not deprive legal entitlements to pension and gratuity which accrued prior to the new pension scheme effective 01.04.2005. (Paras 16, 18, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner joined service in 1985 and was appointed on ad hoc basis under Rule 31 in 1995, later alleged undue delay in regularization by government affected his entitlement to pension.

Findings of Court:
Regularization delay attributed to bureaucratic inefficiency; entitled pension extends back to 10.04.2003, the date of Rule 21-A.

Issues: Main issues include entitlements based on service duration, regularization challenges, and pension scheme applicability.

Ratio Decidendi: Court holds delayed regularization does not nullify entitlement under the old pension scheme, emphasizing the significance of continuous service.

Result: Writ petition allowed, respondents ordered to grant pension and gratuity reckoning service from 10.04.2003.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim for pension and gratuity based on service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding entitlement to pension under the old scheme. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis on regularization and pension rights. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. precedent cases impacting pension eligibility under rule 21-a. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. final order requiring payment of pension and gratuity. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner, Manoj Kumar Mishra, a retired Assistant Engineer (Civil), belonging to the U.P. Palika Centralised Service, seeking our mandamus, ordering the respondents to sanction and fix his pension and gratuity, taking into account his entire length of service from 07.03.1995 to 30.06.2024, that is to say, including the period during which he worked ad hoc. The petitioner has further prayed that he be paid his monthly pension regularly, together with arrears, and, further, that gratuity be also determined and paid to him.

2. The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on daily-wages w.e.f. 29.05.1985 with the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mainpuri. He has remained in employment continuously eversince. In the year 1995, proceedings were taken by the State Government to grant appointment as Junior Engineers (Civil) under Rule 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1966’) to persons working on daily-wage/ contract/ ad hoc basis in the various Nagar Nigam/ Nagar Palika Parishad. In the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner’s name was also included for consideration. On 07.03.1995, an order was issued by the State Government, whereby 58 persons were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1966. The petitioner’s name figures at serial No.53 of the said list. In terms of the order dated 07.03.1995, the petitioner submitted his joining report to the Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow. He was posted at Nagar Palika Parishad, Mahoba, where he joined and discharged duties assigned to him. The petitioner was transferred and posted to different establishments. His work and conduct was always found satisfactory. There was no complaint with regard to his performance etc. by his superiors.

3. The petitioner’s appointment vide order dated 07.03.1995 was an ad hoc appointment under Rule 31 of the Rules 1966. The Rules of 1966 were amended on 10.04.2003 vide the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services (Twenty-First Amendment) Rules, 2003, which introduced Rule 21 -A into the said Rules. It provided for regularization of ad hoc employees, which applies to the petitioner's case. The petitioner asserts that under Rule 21 -A st of the Rules of 1966, as amended by the 21 Amendment, his services should have been regularized in the year 2003 itself, but on account of the respondents' lethargy, there was a time lag in issuing the necessary regularization orders. A regularization order, relating to the petitioner along with some other employees, was made on 11.10.2006 by the Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow.

4. At the time when the regularization order was made, the petitioner was posted with the Nagar Nigam, Agra. He continued with that Nagar Nigam until the year 2016, when he was transferred to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad. In the year 2017, the petitioner was moved to the Agra Development Authority, Agra. While working with the Development Authority aforesaid, he was promoted as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 2023. He retired from service on 30.06.2024 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner says that regular deductions from his salary were made towards his GPF from the month of March, 1995 until his retirement. During his service, he was sanctioned several benefits worked out on the basis of his length of service, reckoned w.e.f. 07.03.1995.

5. On 23.05.2017,

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