Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P.). The said order was challenged in Special Appeal Defect

first day itself, without granting opportunity for filing counter affidavit as also in view of the fact that judgment relied upon by the petitioner is Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra) was decided prior to enactment of U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 being The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021. The matter was remitted for consideration on the said aspect.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subsequent thereto, this Court in the case of Braj Kishor Gupta (supra) has decided the aforesaid question while allowing the writ petition. It is submitted that petitioner is identically placed as Braj Kishor Gupta and has adverted to Annexure - 3 to the writ petition being the order dated

01.08.1983, i.e., appointment order on ad hoc basis. Name of Braj Kishor Gupta finds place at Sl. No. 7 while that of petitioner finds place at Sl. No.4 of the same list with both persons being engaged on the post of Instructor (Radio Mechanic).

7. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 03.11.2025, a copy of which is taken on record.

8. Upon examination of judgment and order in the case of Braj Kishor Gupta (supra), following two questions were referred for consideration:- "(I) Whether petitioner was qualified and therefore eligible for being regularized and, (II) Whether petitioner or her husband were not entitled to relief in lieu of U. P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No.1 of 2021)."

9. Therefore, the aforesaid aspects have thereafter been considered in the following manner:- "4. It has been submitted in the petition that petitioner after completing training from Government Industrial Training Institute, Lucknow enrolled himself with the employment exchange whereafter in pursuance of advertisement and interview, petitioner was appointed on the post of Instructor (Radio Mechanic) on ad hoc basis in the pay-scale of Rs.300-8-324-9-360-E.B.-10-440- E.B.-12-500 vide appointment letter dated 20.02.1981. It has 3 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 further been submitted that at the time of ad hoc appointment of petitioner, there were no Service Rules in the department and appointment was governed by the Government Order dated

28.05.1975.

5. It has been submitted that subsequent to petitioner's appointment, an exercise for regularization of 65 such ad hoc Instructors was conducted in pursuance of order issued by Government dated 06.04.1983, whereafter vide order dated

27.04.1983, a Selection Committee was constituted and gave its recommendation for regularization of 53 persons with further recommendation that remaining 11 persons who did not possess three years requisite experience as on the date of consideration should be granted relaxation by the State Government. Petitioner was one of the 11 such persons whose name was recommended for relaxation. The name of one person was rejected. Despite such recommendations having been made, no orders were passed by the State Government for according such relaxation although petitioner continued in service and was granted various service benefits such as promotional pay-scale from time to time.

14. With regard to the first question regarding eligibility and qualification of petitioner to be regularized in service, it is evident that the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra) is clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as in the said case also, regularization of said person was recommended while noticing that he did not have three years working/practical experience or three years experience in teaching after passing the diploma/ A certificate examination in terms of Government Order dated 28.05.1975. In both cases viz Ashok Kumar Dixit and petitioner, the order of recommendation dated 01.08.1983 clearly states that except for said working experience, the said two persons were otherwise qualified to hold the post of Instructor but since the exercise for regularization was conducted within a period of three years from the date of appointment, they naturally did not fulfill the said condition.

15. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has rebutted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that there was no question of regularization of services of petitioner in view of fact that he did not fulfill the essential qualifications required for appointment on the post of Instructor. It has further been stated that since petitioner did 4 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 not render substantive service on the post, he is disentitled for grant of pensionary benefits.

16. In view of the fact that the present dispute now pertains only to entitlement of petitioner for post-retiral benefits, the petition is being adjudicated with regard to the same ignoring the earlier claim of petitioner for regularization in service.

23. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in 2019(10)SCC 516 was considering the question, as to whether Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulation of Uttar Pradesh should be struck down having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court had upheld the pari materia provision enacted in the State of Punjab which excluded computation of the period of work-charged services from qualifying service for pension.

29. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgments, it is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 on ad hoc basis and subsequently superannuated in 2018 after rendering continuous services in ad hoc capacity. It is an admitted case that the petitioner continued in such capacity without any break, from the initial date of appointment till the date of attaining the age of superannuation. It is a relevant fact that petitioner's case for regularization was referred to the State Government time and again by the Director as well as Principal. While rejecting petitioner's claim for regularization, the only ground taken by opposite parties was that he lacked three years' experience as on the date of appointment. The opposite parties have totally lost sight of the fact that subsequently when the petitioner's case was considered for regularization, he had admittedly completed more than three years of required experience. As such adherence to the aforesaid condition relating it back to the date of initial appointment was not only arbitrary but unreasonable particularly since petitioner fulfilled all other essential qualifications required for appointment on the post.

30. The issue whether a daily wage employee is entitled for grant of pensionary benefits upon superannuation has been adjudicated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Prem Ram versus Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam Dehradun and others in Civil Appeal No. 4474 of 2015 in the following terms:- 5 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 "9. If that be so, there is no denying the fact that the persons who were junior to the appellant, having been engaged much later than him, steal a march over him in terms of regularization in service while the appellant remained embroiled litigation over what was eventually found to be an illegal termination of his service. It is true that the appellant has already superannuated. That does not, however, make any difference. What is important is that the appellant had been appointed as early as in the year 1988 and had by the time the decision of this Court in Umadevi's (3) case (supra) pronounced, already completed more than 10 years service. Government has formulated rules for regularization of such daily-wagers, no matter the same are the subject matter of a challenge before the High Court. What is noteworthy is that neither the State Government nor the Jal Nigam has resented the idea of regularization of those who have served for over a decade. The rules providing for regularization are a sufficient enough indication of that fact. We do not, therefore, impediment directing regularization of the service of the appellant on the analogy of his juniors with effect from the date his juniors were regularized and for the release of all retiral benefits in his favour on that basis by treating him to be in continuous service till the date of his superannuation. We make it clear that this direction will not entitle the appellant to claim any amount towards arrears of salary based on such regularization."

31. In view of aforesaid judgments, it is clear that ad hoc/ temporary/ daily wage employees rendering long years of service permitted superannuate without regularization/confirmation in service are entitled to post retiral benefits.

32. Having considered the aforesaid facts and as has been noticed herein above, it is the case of opposite parties that petitioner although was duly qualified for holding the post of Instructor but could not be regularized only on account of the fact that he had not completed three years of working/practical experience as on the date of consideration for regularization. In the considered opinion 6 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 of this Court, the non consideration for regularization of petitioner on that ground is based only on the fortuitous circumstance that exercise for regularization was conducted within a period of three years from date of ad hoc appointment of petitioner. Had the aforesaid exercise been conducted subsequently, even the said condition would have been fulfilled by petitioner. Such a fortuitous circumstance cannot be made the ground for rejection of petitioner's claim for regularization particularly in view of the fact that at the time of petitioner's superannuation in 2015, he had already rendered 34 years of service.

33. It is relevant to notice that the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit was also allowed on the same basis and premise and since the said judgment has attained finality having been upheld in Special Appeal as well as in Special Leave Petition, it would thus have a binding precedent in the present case as well since there is nothing stated in the counter affidavit to take a contrary stand and particularly since the said Ashok Kumar Dixit and the petitioner are similarly placed. In view of aforesaid, it is held that petitioner despite having superannuated without regularization would definitely be entitled to service benefits such as post retiral benefits."

10. The aspect of Validation Act No. 1 of 2021 was referred to as question No.2 in the aforesaid judgment and has been answered in the following manner:- "37. Upon consideration of the aforesaid Act, it is evident that under Section 2, the term 'qualifying service' has been defined as service rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with provisions of the Service Rules prescribed by the Government for the post.

38. In the present case, it has been admitted by opposite parties that at the time of petitioner's induction into service on ad hoc basis, there were no Service Rules prescribed by the Government for the post and the terms and conditions of service were in fact governed by Government Order dated 28.05.1975 whereby six conditions as indicated herein above were prescribed.

39. In the present case, it is also admitted that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis with the petitioner being qualified in terms of educational qualifications required for the post of 7 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 Instructor. However he was not found eligible since he had not completed three years working/ practical experience as on the date of consideration for regularization.

40. Since admittedly there were no Service Rules prescribed by the Government for appointment on the post of Instructor when petitioner was appointed on the said post, the said Government Order dated 28.05.1975 would be determining factor. As has already been held in answer to question no.1, circumstance of holding the regularization exercise prior completion of three years service by petitioner being only a fortuitous circumstance, cannot come in the way of grant of service benefits to petitioner. It is but evident that petitioner would come within the scope of Section 2 of the Validation Act of 2021 particularly since there were no other Service Rules prescribed by the Government.

44. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case also, petitioner does not come within exception of Section 2 of Validation Act of 2021 and therefore would be entitled for grant of pensionary benefits. Question No.II is also answered accordingly in favour of petitioner."

11. The Court has also examined the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties and from perusal of which, it is evident that petitioner stood in parity with Braj Kishor Gupta (supra) and is also evident from the order dated 01.08.1983 brought on record as Annexure - 3 to the writ petition whereby both the persons petitioner as well as Braj Kishor Gupta were engaged in service by same order and on same post initially on ad hoc basis.

12. The counter affidavit also admits fact that essential qualifications for appointment of Instructor (Radio Mechanic) mentioned in the Government Order dated 28.05.1975 were not followed since the petitioner did not have 3 years practical experience or 3 years' experience in Teaching after passing the Diploma or a Certificate of Examination.

13. It is also evident from material on record, particularly RA1 to rejoinder affidavit that judgment of Braj Kishor Gupta (supra) was thereafter challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary 8 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 No.30709 of 2024 and was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file Special Appeal. It is admitted that no Special Appeal was preferred against the said judgment and the said judgment was in fact complied with vide order dated 27.09.2024 also brought on record as Annexure RA2 to the rejoinder affidavit.

14. From perusal of the judgment rendered in the case of Braj Kishor Gupta this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner's case is squarely covered by the said judgment and the petitioner would also be entitled for the same relief as has been granted in the case of Braj Kishor Gupta in the following manner:- "45. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing opposite parties to pay post retiral benefits including pension gratuity etc. to petitioner with effect from the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2015 ignoring any orders of the Department of State Government to the contrary, if any.

46. Orders pertaining to and actual payment of same shall be made within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the opposite parties. The period of ad hoc service of petitioner shall be calculated for the purposes of qualifying service. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the same Selection Grade pay- scale under Assured Career Progression issued from time to time by Government Orders and the post-retiral benefits shall be computed after fixing the salary on revised pay- scales under the Assured Career Progression Schemes. It is made clear that petitioner shall not be entitled to arrears of salary."

15. In terms of aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 6, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

first day itself, without granting opportunity for filing counter affidavit as also in view of the fact that judgment relied upon by the petitioner is Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra) was decided prior to enactment of U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 being The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021. The matter was remitted for consideration on the said aspect.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subsequent thereto, this Court in the case of Braj Kishor Gupta (supra) has decided the aforesaid question while allowing the writ petition. It is submitted that petitioner is identically placed as Braj Kishor Gupta and has adverted to Annexure - 3 to the writ petition being the order dated

01.08.1983, i.e., appointment order on ad hoc basis. Name of Braj Kishor Gupta finds place at Sl. No. 7 while that of petitioner finds place at Sl. No.4 of the same list with both persons being engaged on the post of Instructor (Radio Mechanic).

7. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 03.11.2025, a copy of which is taken on record.

8. Upon examination of judgment and order in the case of Braj Kishor Gupta (supra), following two questions were referred for consideration:- "(I) Whether petitioner was qualified and therefore eligible for being regularized and, (II) Whether petitioner or her husband were not entitled to relief in lieu of U. P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No.1 of 2021)."

9. Therefore, the aforesaid aspects have thereafter been considered in the following manner:- "4. It has been submitted in the petition that petitioner after completing training from Government Industrial Training Institute, Lucknow enrolled himself with the employment exchange whereafter in pursuance of advertisement and interview, petitioner was appointed on the post of Instructor (Radio Mechanic) on ad hoc basis in the pay-scale of Rs.300-8-324-9-360-E.B.-10-440- E.B.-12-500 vide appointment letter dated 20.02.1981. It has 3 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 further been submitted that at the time of ad hoc appointment of petitioner, there were no Service Rules in the department and appointment was governed by the Government Order dated

28.05.1975.

5. It has been submitted that subsequent to petitioner's appointment, an exercise for regularization of 65 such ad hoc Instructors was conducted in pursuance of order issued by Government dated 06.04.1983, whereafter vide order dated

27.04.1983, a Selection Committee was constituted and gave its recommendation for regularization of 53 persons with further recommendation that remaining 11 persons who did not possess three years requisite experience as on the date of consideration should be granted relaxation by the State Government. Petitioner was one of the 11 such persons whose name was recommended for relaxation. The name of one person was rejected. Despite such recommendations having been made, no orders were passed by the State Government for according such relaxation although petitioner continued in service and was granted various service benefits such as promotional pay-scale from time to time.

14. With regard to the first question regarding eligibility and qualification of petitioner to be regularized in service, it is evident that the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra) is clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as in the said case also, regularization of said person was recommended while noticing that he did not have three years working/practical experience or three years experience in teaching after passing the diploma/ A certificate examination in terms of Government Order dated 28.05.1975. In both cases viz Ashok Kumar Dixit and petitioner, the order of recommendation dated 01.08.1983 clearly states that except for said working experience, the said two persons were otherwise qualified to hold the post of Instructor but since the exercise for regularization was conducted within a period of three years from the date of appointment, they naturally did not fulfill the said condition.

15. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has rebutted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that there was no question of regularization of services of petitioner in view of fact that he did not fulfill the essential qualifications required for appointment on the post of Instructor. It has further been stated that since petitioner did 4 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 not render substantive service on the post, he is disentitled for grant of pensionary benefits.

16. In view of the fact that the present dispute now pertains only to entitlement of petitioner for post-retiral benefits, the petition is being adjudicated with regard to the same ignoring the earlier claim of petitioner for regularization in service.

23. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in 2019(10)SCC 516 was considering the question, as to whether Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulation of Uttar Pradesh should be struck down having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court had upheld the pari materia provision enacted in the State of Punjab which excluded computation of the period of work-charged services from qualifying service for pension.

29. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgments, it is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 on ad hoc basis and subsequently superannuated in 2018 after rendering continuous services in ad hoc capacity. It is an admitted case that the petitioner continued in such capacity without any break, from the initial date of appointment till the date of attaining the age of superannuation. It is a relevant fact that petitioner's case for regularization was referred to the State Government time and again by the Director as well as Principal. While rejecting petitioner's claim for regularization, the only ground taken by opposite parties was that he lacked three years' experience as on the date of appointment. The opposite parties have totally lost sight of the fact that subsequently when the petitioner's case was considered for regularization, he had admittedly completed more than three years of required experience. As such adherence to the aforesaid condition relating it back to the date of initial appointment was not only arbitrary but unreasonable particularly since petitioner fulfilled all other essential qualifications required for appointment on the post.

30. The issue whether a daily wage employee is entitled for grant of pensionary benefits upon superannuation has been adjudicated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Prem Ram versus Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam Dehradun and others in Civil Appeal No. 4474 of 2015 in the following terms:- 5 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 "9. If that be so, there is no denying the fact that the persons who were junior to the appellant, having been engaged much later than him, steal a march over him in terms of regularization in service while the appellant remained embroiled litigation over what was eventually found to be an illegal termination of his service. It is true that the appellant has already superannuated. That does not, however, make any difference. What is important is that the appellant had been appointed as early as in the year 1988 and had by the time the decision of this Court in Umadevi's (3) case (supra) pronounced, already completed more than 10 years service. Government has formulated rules for regularization of such daily-wagers, no matter the same are the subject matter of a challenge before the High Court. What is noteworthy is that neither the State Government nor the Jal Nigam has resented the idea of regularization of those who have served for over a decade. The rules providing for regularization are a sufficient enough indication of that fact. We do not, therefore, impediment directing regularization of the service of the appellant on the analogy of his juniors with effect from the date his juniors were regularized and for the release of all retiral benefits in his favour on that basis by treating him to be in continuous service till the date of his superannuation. We make it clear that this direction will not entitle the appellant to claim any amount towards arrears of salary based on such regularization."

31. In view of aforesaid judgments, it is clear that ad hoc/ temporary/ daily wage employees rendering long years of service permitted superannuate without regularization/confirmation in service are entitled to post retiral benefits.

32. Having considered the aforesaid facts and as has been noticed herein above, it is the case of opposite parties that petitioner although was duly qualified for holding the post of Instructor but could not be regularized only on account of the fact that he had not completed three years of working/practical experience as on the date of consideration for regularization. In the considered opinion 6 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 of this Court, the non consideration for regularization of petitioner on that ground is based only on the fortuitous circumstance that exercise for regularization was conducted within a period of three years from date of ad hoc appointment of petitioner. Had the aforesaid exercise been conducted subsequently, even the said condition would have been fulfilled by petitioner. Such a fortuitous circumstance cannot be made the ground for rejection of petitioner's claim for regularization particularly in view of the fact that at the time of petitioner's superannuation in 2015, he had already rendered 34 years of service.

33. It is relevant to notice that the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit was also allowed on the same basis and premise and since the said judgment has attained finality having been upheld in Special Appeal as well as in Special Leave Petition, it would thus have a binding precedent in the present case as well since there is nothing stated in the counter affidavit to take a contrary stand and particularly since the said Ashok Kumar Dixit and the petitioner are similarly placed. In view of aforesaid, it is held that petitioner despite having superannuated without regularization would definitely be entitled to service benefits such as post retiral benefits."

10. The aspect of Validation Act No. 1 of 2021 was referred to as question No.2 in the aforesaid judgment and has been answered in the following manner:- "37. Upon consideration of the aforesaid Act, it is evident that under Section 2, the term 'qualifying service' has been defined as service rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with provisions of the Service Rules prescribed by the Government for the post.

38. In the present case, it has been admitted by opposite parties that at the time of petitioner's induction into service on ad hoc basis, there were no Service Rules prescribed by the Government for the post and the terms and conditions of service were in fact governed by Government Order dated 28.05.1975 whereby six conditions as indicated herein above were prescribed.

39. In the present case, it is also admitted that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis with the petitioner being qualified in terms of educational qualifications required for the post of 7 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 Instructor. However he was not found eligible since he had not completed three years working/ practical experience as on the date of consideration for regularization.

40. Since admittedly there were no Service Rules prescribed by the Government for appointment on the post of Instructor when petitioner was appointed on the said post, the said Government Order dated 28.05.1975 would be determining factor. As has already been held in answer to question no.1, circumstance of holding the regularization exercise prior completion of three years service by petitioner being only a fortuitous circumstance, cannot come in the way of grant of service benefits to petitioner. It is but evident that petitioner would come within the scope of Section 2 of the Validation Act of 2021 particularly since there were no other Service Rules prescribed by the Government.

44. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case also, petitioner does not come within exception of Section 2 of Validation Act of 2021 and therefore would be entitled for grant of pensionary benefits. Question No.II is also answered accordingly in favour of petitioner."

11. The Court has also examined the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties and from perusal of which, it is evident that petitioner stood in parity with Braj Kishor Gupta (supra) and is also evident from the order dated 01.08.1983 brought on record as Annexure - 3 to the writ petition whereby both the persons petitioner as well as Braj Kishor Gupta were engaged in service by same order and on same post initially on ad hoc basis.

12. The counter affidavit also admits fact that essential qualifications for appointment of Instructor (Radio Mechanic) mentioned in the Government Order dated 28.05.1975 were not followed since the petitioner did not have 3 years practical experience or 3 years' experience in Teaching after passing the Diploma or a Certificate of Examination.

13. It is also evident from material on record, particularly RA1 to rejoinder affidavit that judgment of Braj Kishor Gupta (supra) was thereafter challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary 8 WRIA No. 4793 of 2022 No.30709 of 2024 and was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file Special Appeal. It is admitted that no Special Appeal was preferred against the said judgment and the said judgment was in fact complied with vide order dated 27.09.2024 also brought on record as Annexure RA2 to the rejoinder affidavit.

14. From perusal of the judgment rendered in the case of Braj Kishor Gupta this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner's case is squarely covered by the said judgment and the petitioner would also be entitled for the same relief as has been granted in the case of Braj Kishor Gupta in the following manner:- "45. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing opposite parties to pay post retiral benefits including pension gratuity etc. to petitioner with effect from the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2015 ignoring any orders of the Department of State Government to the contrary, if any.

46. Orders pertaining to and actual payment of same shall be made within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the opposite parties. The period of ad hoc service of petitioner shall be calculated for the purposes of qualifying service. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the same Selection Grade pay- scale under Assured Career Progression issued from time to time by Government Orders and the post-retiral benefits shall be computed after fixing the salary on revised pay- scales under the Assured Career Progression Schemes. It is made clear that petitioner shall not be entitled to arrears of salary."

15. In terms of aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 6, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench