Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Rekha Singh - Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondent(s)
WRIT - A No. - 4877 of 2021
Decided On : 27-02-2026
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 (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the petitioner's employment and previous claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal contentions regarding the entitlement of post-retiral benefits. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's examination of the labor status and rights concerning the institute. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. explanation of the principles on entitlement for benefits and negative parity. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Petitioner has worked as Assistant Director/ Director in Institute of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education, University of Allahabad and she has retired also.
2. Earlier she has approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 31696 of 2016 when she was in service and sought a direction commanding University to pay arrears of salary to her from November, 2014. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 13.04.2018 that petitioner be paid salary from November, 2014 till her retirement in 2017 and taking note that meanwhile, she has attained age of superannuation. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter:
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that in exercise of powers under Section 28(3) of the Act, 2005 the Visitor has no authority of law to deny or refuse grant of assent to the proposed amendment to the Statues as resolved by the Executive Council and that the power of withholding the assent is not unfettered so as to permit him to keep it pending or withheld for years together as withholding of the assent is permissible only for a limited period which may be fair and reasonable in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi is directed to place the matter once again before the Visitor and to have his final opinion for the grant of assent or for remittance of the matter to the Executive Council of the University for reconsideration, if necessary.
Since the ICC&CE is a Self-Financing Institute of the university, we do not certainly like to burden the public exchequer or the Government with the liability to pay salary and the emoluments admissible to the petitioner as Assistant Director of the ICC&CE but are of the clear opinion that as the petitioner had continuously worked there from November, 2014 till her retirement in 2017, there is no justification not to pay her salary/remuneration admissible to her otherwise it would amount to Begar which is not only prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India but is also punishable.
Accordingly, we direct the University to make immediate arrangement for payment of salary and emoluments to the petitioner for the period November, 2014 till 2017 and to make the entire payment within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which criminal action for punishing the erring officers shall be taken in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.”
3. Aforesaid order was challenged at behest of University of Allahabad before Supreme Court by way of filing a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25675 of 2018, which was dismissed vide an order dated 04.07.2019 and a Review Petition thereof was also dismissed by Supreme Court vide an order dated 19.09.2019.
4. After the petitioner got retired on 31.08.2017 she again approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No. 23048 of 2018 being aggrieved for non payment of her post retiral dues. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 27.10.2018 that her representation be considered in accordance with law. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:
“4. Since the aforesaid claim involves factual aspect, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending or calling for counter affidavit. Hence, the same is disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) since the peti
Post-retiral benefits cannot be claimed without explicit legal provisions; temporary status of an institution does not confer entitlement to benefits as a permanent employee.
Existing pension at the rate of Central University be stopped - petitioner had been substantively appointed in the post of the Registrar of Tripura University. Hence, the service rendered by the peti....
Uninterrupted service, regardless of initial temporary status, qualifies for pension benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, and administrative delays in regularization cannot deprive employees of the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees appointed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment are entitled to retirement benefits as per the Central Government Rules ....
The liability to pay the pension and other benefits payable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 would be that of the State Government and not the University o....
An employee's right to pension is statutory and cannot be forfeited without due process, emphasizing the need for formal inquiry before denying benefits due to unauthorized absence.
Past temporary services of employees must be considered for pension calculation under the Bihar Pension Rules, ensuring fair treatment and preventing undue hardship.
An employee of an Autonomous Body cannot claim pension without a pension scheme, and the mere belief in the existence of a pension scheme does not entitle the employee to pension as a Government empl....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
