Advocates appeared:
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.), Mohd. Atif, Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, Rahul Sahai, Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s): A.S.G.I., Chandan Sharma, Rijwan Ali Akhtar

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Rekha Singh vs. Union of India and others:

Case Background and Employment Status * The petitioner worked as an Assistant Director/Director in the Institute of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education (ICC&CE), University of Allahabad, and retired in 2017 (!) . * The Institute is a self-financing institute of the University, and its staff (other than the Director) are engaged on a temporary or contractual basis (!) (!) . * Previously, the Court directed the University to pay salary arrears from November 2014 to 2017, ruling that non-payment would amount to Begar (forced labor) prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution, but no post-retiral dues were claimed or ordered at that stage (!) (!) .

Petitioner's Claims * After retirement, the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming post-retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, encashment, and provident fund (!) . * The petitioner argued that under Section 5(d) of the University of Allahabad Act, 2005, her service tenure, remuneration, and rights (including pension) should remain the same as before the Act came into force (!) . * The petitioner also cited Section 37 of the Act, 2005, claiming entitlement to pension (!) . * The petitioner submitted that some other employees of the Institute were granted post-retiral benefits, arguing that the University's rejection was arbitrary (!) .

Respondent's Arguments * The University argued that the Institute remains a temporary self-financing institution under Section 30(2) of the Act, 2005, and all matters are governed by Ordinances (!) . * The University stated that staff engagement is temporary and purely dependent on the Institute's income from fees, with no provision in the Ordinance for post-retiral dues (!) . * The University highlighted that Ordinance XXXII, Clause 5(a) specifies that staff other than the Director are engaged temporarily or contractually (!) (!) .

Court's Findings and Legal Principles * Requirement of Explicit Provisions: The Court held that entitlement to post-retiral benefits depends on specific rules or statutes. Mere status as an integral part of the University or protection under Section 5(d) (which preserves tenure and conditions but does not explicitly grant new pension rights) is insufficient without a specific provision (!) (!) . * Precedent on Pension Entitlement: Relying on Supreme Court judgments (e.g., U.P. Roadways, Prabhu Narain), the Court affirmed that pension is a valuable right that must be established under a particular rule or scheme; it is not a bounty (!) (!) (!) . * No Negative Equality: The Court rejected the argument based on other employees receiving benefits, citing the principle of "No Negative Equality." A benefit granted to others without legal basis or due to a mistake does not create a legal right for the petitioner (!) (!) (!) . * Conclusion: Since no specific rule or statute grants the petitioner post-retiral benefits and the argument of negative parity was rejected, the claim was not sustainable (!) (!) .

Result * The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed (!) .