Jaipal Singh Bangari v. State of U.P.& Ors.) in which interim protection was also granted in his favour

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7788 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta Bangari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla,Alok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Counter affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavit filed today are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

3. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for ensuring payment of entire death-cum-retiral dues of Late Jaipal Singh Bangari who is husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2, alongwith interest. Further prayer for grant of family pension in favour of petitioner no.1 and arrears thereof alongwith interest has also been sought.

4. It has been submitted that initially Late Jaipal Singh Bangari, the deceased was appointed on daily wage basis on 23.08.1990 whereafter his services were terminated by oral order in August, 1992 leading to filing of Writ Petition No.8576(S/B) of 1992 ( Jaipal Singh Bangari vs. State of U.P.& Ors.) in which interim protection was also granted in his favour on 08.12.1992. It is submitted that subsequently the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2010 primarily on the ground that the order of disengagement dated 22.09.1992 although filed alongwith the counter affidavit was never challenged by petitioner.

5. It is submitted that notwithstanding the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, petitioner was absorbed substantively in service on the post of Junior Clerk in the department by order dated 23.09.1994 and was also granted promotion on the post of Senior Clerk vide order dated 29.07.2005 and further on the post of Head Clerk vide order dated 30.01.2015 but passed away while in service on 30.12.2024,

6. It is submitted that the fact that petitioner was continued in service and was also provided promotions despite dismissal of writ petition, clearly indicates that he was substantively appointed in service and therefore was entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits including family pension to his heirs and successors.

7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit filed today has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that in view of the fact that petitioner’s earlier writ petition was dismissed, the dispute has been referred to the state government vide letter dated 18.07.2025 and further action shall be taken in terms of guidance provided by the state government.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that petitioner had challenged the oral order of termination in the earlier writ petition bearing no.8576 (S/B) of 1992 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2010 primarily on the ground that the order of disengagement dated 22.09.1992 was not challenged by petitioner.

9. Notwithstanding the aforesaid aspect, it is also evident from record that petitioner during the course of pendency of the said writ petition was absorbed in the department on substantive basis on the post of Junior Clerk vide order dated 23.09.1994. It is noticeable that the order of absorption of petitioner substantively in service does not at all advert to the writ petition pending before this Court nor was petitioner’s absorption made subject to final outcome of the said writ petition. It is also evident that petitioner was subsequently promoted on the post of Senior Clerk vide order dated 29.07.2005 with the only condition that seniority would be determined in terms of petitions pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. It is also evident that subsequently after dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner was again promoted on the post of Head Clerk vide order dated 30.01.2015.

10. It is evident from record that the promotion orders dated 29.7.2005 and 30.01.2015 are not subject to final outcome of the writ petition which was filed by the deceased earlier.

11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus quite evident that petitioner’s absorption in department was on substantive basis irrespective of his earlier termination and pendency of writ petition. He was also granted promotion twice on substantive basis in the department.

12. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate the aspect that petitioner was substantively appointed in the department and was therefore entitled to all service and post retiral benefits had he superannuated when due.

13. The aforesaid aspect has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devendra Singh vs. State of U.P and Ors. in Special Appeal No.167 of 2024 in the following paragraphs which reads as under:- “14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Devesh Vikram, leaned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the Court is of the view that both the Special Appeals deserve to be allowed. The appellants after they were appointed on 31.8.1987 and 26.2.1989, their appointments were also approved on 11.9.1987 and 25/26.7.1989. After their services were terminated on 17.10.1989, they had approached the High Court by means of Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989, wherein an interim order was passed on 4.12.1989 and the termination order dated 17.10.1989 was kept in abeyance. The writ petition was thereafter dismissed as having become infructuous on 17.10.2001. Upon an application moved by the petitioners, the said order was recalled on 8.3.2010 and on the same day, it was got dismissed as not pressed. However, during the intervening period, the appellants had been absorbed on two existing vacancies by means of an order dated 31.3.2006. The appellants having been absorbed on existing vacancies, the irregularity, if any initially in their appintments, would be deemed to have been cured as per the judgments of the Supreme Court cited by learned counsel for the appellants i.e. Mansaram (supra) and Madras Aluminium Company Limited (supra). As per these judgments definitely if any action had to be taken, it ought to have been taken within reasonable time and that having not been taken, the appellants could not now be penalized. Further, the Court is of the view that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav (supra) the appellants definitely were not at fault. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar (supra) and Jaggo (supra) we find that definitely when there was an irregularity in the appointments of the appellants, that irregularity had been removed and the appointments were regularized.

15. In the ultimate analysis, we are thus of the view that the writ petitions had to be allowed. The orders of the Joint Director of Education which were passed on the fact that the initial appointment was wrongly made, were erroneously passed.

16. For all the reasons which we have stated above, we are of the considered view that if there was any irregularity in the initial appointment, it was done away with by the State and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants did not come within the purview of the relevant provisions relating to regularisation. The appellants after they were absorbed on regular vacancies, it had to be taken that they were always working on the regular vacancies and since they were throughout teaching till the date when they retired, it could be taken that they were always in continuous service.”

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgement is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

15. Resultantly a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to make payment of post retiral benefits due to Late Jaipal Singh Bangari to the petitioners expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served upon opposite party no.2 i.e Director, Administration & Development, Department of Animal Husbandry, Lucknow. The said opposite party is also directed to ensure payment of family pension to petitioner no.1 from the date it became due. Interest @ 6% per annum from due date till the date of actual payment on all arrears is also granted within the same time frame of eight weeks.

16. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed.

17. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Shahnaz (Manish Mathur,J) SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7788 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta Bangari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla,Alok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Counter affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavit filed today are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

3. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for ensuring payment of entire death-cum-retiral dues of Late Jaipal Singh Bangari who is husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2, alongwith interest. Further prayer for grant of family pension in favour of petitioner no.1 and arrears thereof alongwith interest has also been sought.

4. It has been submitted that initially Late Jaipal Singh Bangari, the deceased was appointed on daily wage basis on 23.08.1990 whereafter his services were terminated by oral order in August, 1992 leading to filing of Writ Petition No.8576(S/B) of 1992 ( Jaipal Singh Bangari vs. State of U.P.& Ors.) in which interim protection was also granted in his favour on 08.12.1992. It is submitted that subsequently the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2010 primarily on the ground that the order of disengagement dated 22.09.1992 although filed alongwith the counter affidavit was never challenged by petitioner.

5. It is submitted that notwithstanding the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, petitioner was absorbed substantively in service on the post of Junior Clerk in the department by order dated 23.09.1994 and was also granted promotion on the post of Senior Clerk vide order dated 29.07.2005 and further on the post of Head Clerk vide order dated 30.01.2015 but passed away while in service on 30.12.2024,

6. It is submitted that the fact that petitioner was continued in service and was also provided promotions despite dismissal of writ petition, clearly indicates that he was substantively appointed in service and therefore was entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits including family pension to his heirs and successors.

7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit filed today has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that in view of the fact that petitioner’s earlier writ petition was dismissed, the dispute has been referred to the state government vide letter dated 18.07.2025 and further action shall be taken in terms of guidance provided by the state government.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that petitioner had challenged the oral order of termination in the earlier writ petition bearing no.8576 (S/B) of 1992 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2010 primarily on the ground that the order of disengagement dated 22.09.1992 was not challenged by petitioner.

9. Notwithstanding the aforesaid aspect, it is also evident from record that petitioner during the course of pendency of the said writ petition was absorbed in the department on substantive basis on the post of Junior Clerk vide order dated 23.09.1994. It is noticeable that the order of absorption of petitioner substantively in service does not at all advert to the writ petition pending before this Court nor was petitioner’s absorption made subject to final outcome of the said writ petition. It is also evident that petitioner was subsequently promoted on the post of Senior Clerk vide order dated 29.07.2005 with the only condition that seniority would be determined in terms of petitions pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. It is also evident that subsequently after dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner was again promoted on the post of Head Clerk vide order dated 30.01.2015.

10. It is evident from record that the promotion orders dated 29.7.2005 and 30.01.2015 are not subject to final outcome of the writ petition which was filed by the deceased earlier.

11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus quite evident that petitioner’s absorption in department was on substantive basis irrespective of his earlier termination and pendency of writ petition. He was also granted promotion twice on substantive basis in the department.

12. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate the aspect that petitioner was substantively appointed in the department and was therefore entitled to all service and post retiral benefits had he superannuated when due.

13. The aforesaid aspect has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devendra Singh vs. State of U.P and Ors. in Special Appeal No.167 of 2024 in the following paragraphs which reads as under:- “14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Devesh Vikram, leaned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the Court is of the view that both the Special Appeals deserve to be allowed. The appellants after they were appointed on 31.8.1987 and 26.2.1989, their appointments were also approved on 11.9.1987 and 25/26.7.1989. After their services were terminated on 17.10.1989, they had approached the High Court by means of Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989, wherein an interim order was passed on 4.12.1989 and the termination order dated 17.10.1989 was kept in abeyance. The writ petition was thereafter dismissed as having become infructuous on 17.10.2001. Upon an application moved by the petitioners, the said order was recalled on 8.3.2010 and on the same day, it was got dismissed as not pressed. However, during the intervening period, the appellants had been absorbed on two existing vacancies by means of an order dated 31.3.2006. The appellants having been absorbed on existing vacancies, the irregularity, if any initially in their appintments, would be deemed to have been cured as per the judgments of the Supreme Court cited by learned counsel for the appellants i.e. Mansaram (supra) and Madras Aluminium Company Limited (supra). As per these judgments definitely if any action had to be taken, it ought to have been taken within reasonable time and that having not been taken, the appellants could not now be penalized. Further, the Court is of the view that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav (supra) the appellants definitely were not at fault. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar (supra) and Jaggo (supra) we find that definitely when there was an irregularity in the appointments of the appellants, that irregularity had been removed and the appointments were regularized.

15. In the ultimate analysis, we are thus of the view that the writ petitions had to be allowed. The orders of the Joint Director of Education which were passed on the fact that the initial appointment was wrongly made, were erroneously passed.

16. For all the reasons which we have stated above, we are of the considered view that if there was any irregularity in the initial appointment, it was done away with by the State and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants did not come within the purview of the relevant provisions relating to regularisation. The appellants after they were absorbed on regular vacancies, it had to be taken that they were always working on the regular vacancies and since they were throughout teaching till the date when they retired, it could be taken that they were always in continuous service.”

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgement is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

15. Resultantly a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to make payment of post retiral benefits due to Late Jaipal Singh Bangari to the petitioners expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served upon opposite party no.2 i.e Director, Administration & Development, Department of Animal Husbandry, Lucknow. The said opposite party is also directed to ensure payment of family pension to petitioner no.1 from the date it became due. Interest @ 6% per annum from due date till the date of actual payment on all arrears is also granted within the same time frame of eight weeks.

16. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed.

17. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Shahnaz (Manish Mathur,J) SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench