Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3788
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Umesh Chandra Shukla and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 18915 of 2025
Decided On : 16-12-2025
For the Appellants : Arvind Prabodh Dubey, Nirbhay Singh
For the Respondent: Kushmondeya Shahi
Transferred employees from local bodies to statutory boards possess a vested right to terminal benefits, including leave encashment, as their pre-transfer service terms are protected by law. This entitlement cannot be denied on the grounds of insufficient departmental circulars where the statutory mandate preserves pre-existing service conditions.
Headnote:(A) 1972 Act - Section 9 - Transfer of employees - Entitlement to leave encashment - Employees whose services were transferred from a local body to a statutory board are entitled to the same terms and conditions of service as held previously, unless explicitly altered by rules - Statutory preservation of service conditions ensures that terminal benefits like leave encashment do not lapse upon transfer - Withholding such benefits due to the absence of specific internal circulars is legally unsustainable where the right is vested by statute and affirmed by judicial precedent. (Paras 5, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were initially appointed in various capacities in a local body, had their services transferred to a statutory board upon the enactment of the law. Upon reaching the age of superannuation, the petitioners were denied leave encashment, with the competent authority citing the lack of specific government circulars as the reason for denial. The petitioners challenged this decision, relying on established judicial precedents that confirmed the entitlement of transferred employees to such benefits based on their preserved pre-transfer service conditions.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the refusal to grant terminal benefits was legally erroneous. The statutory framework governing the transfer of employees mandates the protection of existing service terms. Under the law, service rendered under a local body is deemed to be service under the board, thereby preserving the entitlement to leave encashment regardless of the absence of subsequent departmental administrative orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether employees whose services were transferred from a local body to a statutory board are entitled to leave encashment based on their unvaried terms and conditions of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory provision governing the transfer of services ensures that an employee's tenure, remuneration, and other service conditions remain intact upon transition. As these conditions are preserved by operation of law, the right to claim established benefits cannot be denied by the authorities on the basis of a lack of administrative circulars.
Result: Writ petition allowed. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the authority for a fresh decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and factual background of the petitioners' service benefits claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions regarding entitlement to leave encashment based on judicial precedents. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of section 9 of the 1972 act regarding transfer of service and maintenance of service conditions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. application of established judicial precedents to grant relief and remit the matter for action. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Sri Gaurav Singh learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Dinesh Kumar (AoR A/D 0370/2012) holding brief of Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for the BSA.
2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the petition be decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioners is that so far as the writ petitioner no. 1 is concerned he was appointed as a class IV employee on 07.05.1993 and promoted as Clerk on 10.12.2020 and superannuated on 30.06.2024, as regards petitioner no. 2 was appointed as a Clerk on 14.08.2001 and superannuated on 30.06.2022 and petitioner no. 3 was appointed as Class IV employee on 24.07.1990 and superannuated on 31.03.2025. Since the writ petitioners are not accorded the leave encashment so they preferred Writ-A No. 6444 of 2021 which came to be disposed of on 28.04.2025 requiring the respondents to consider the claim and the claim set up by the writ petitioner came to be rejected on 14.08.2025 by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar, third respondent.
4. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the writ petitioner are entitled to the benefits of leave encashment as the said issue stands crystalized in Writ-A No. 10788 of 2021 decided on 16.12.2021 order whereof stood affirmed in Special Appeal No. 702 of 2022 (The Finance Controller, Basic Shiksha Parishad Vs. Badri Nath Tiwari) decided on 06.01.2023 and eventually dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 24879 of 2023. Submission is that the finding recorded in the order impugned that there are no Government Orders or Circular, thus, the writ petitioners cannot be accorded the said benefit is misconceived beside being out of the context as there happens to be judicial order and the similarly situated persons have been accorded benefits.
6. Learned Standing Counsel as well the counsel appearing for the Basic Shiksha Parishad could not dispute the said legal position.
7. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.
8. A Coordinate Bench in Badri Nath Tiwari (supra) had observed as under.-
"Petitioner was initially appointed as Account Clerk in Zila Parishad, Allahabad in 1966. After promulgation of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 the services of petitioner were transferred to Basic Shiksha Parishad in terms of section 9 of the Act of 1972. The petitioner was promoted and has ultimately attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2003. He has approached this Court with the grievance that the authorities have illegally denied payment of leave encashment. It is stated that benefit of leave encahsment was available to the employees of Zila Parishad and by virtue of section 9 of the Act of 1972 the terms of petitioner's engagement could not have been varied on account of his transfer to the Board.
Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16921 of 2008, Dharmidhar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 25.08.2014. A special appeal filed against such judgement was also dismissed on 02.02.2016. The provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1972 as also
