Ashok Kumar Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. And

1. Heard Ms. Ninnie Srivastava learned counsel for petitioners and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 8th January 2025 whereby petitioner's claim for leave encashment has been denied.

3. It has been submitted that petitioners were appointed in the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) and subsequently superannuated on 31st January 2013 and 31st July 2014, respectively. Except for leave encashment, all remaining post-retiral benefits were paid to them and therefore grievance with regard to same was raised earlier also before this court and in terms of directions issued, the impugned order has been passed denying the aforesaid benefit on the ground that petitioners are not entitled to for the same since there is no provision in the DRDA for payment of any leave encashment nor are the petitioners covered by any rules made in terms of Article 309 of Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Full Bench of this court in the case of Km. Kalyani Mehrotra versus State of U.P., 2021 [4] A.D.J 397[F.B.] to submit that the aforesaid aspect has already been dealt with by the Full Bench and it has been held that rules and regulations as applicable upon government employees are also applicable to the employees of DRDA. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on 2 WRIA No. 8779 of 2025 judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ A. No. 12721 of 2024 as upheld in Special Appeal Defective No.210 of 2025 as well as by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition [Civil] Diary No. 48921 of 2025. It is therefore submitted that since the aforesaid aspect has already been concluded by Full Bench as well as judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court upheld till Supreme Court, petitioners are entitled for the same.

5. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner but could not distinguish the aforesaid judgments.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's claim for leave encashment has been denied in view of the twin grounds as indicated herein above.

7. The aforesaid aspect has already been considered and decided by Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Tiwari (supra) in the following manner:- " 9. It is noticed that undisputedly the petitioner is an employee of DRDA which was earlier created in each district of the State under the directions of the Government of India for ensuring effective implementation of rural development programmes. Formal creation of DRDA was contemplated under the Office Memorandum of the Government of India dated 24.10.1980, which provided that DRDA will be created as a Society in each district. The State Government, vide Government Order dated

24.11.1980, created DRDAs in each district. The Central Government issued an Office Memorandum dated 10.03.1981 pursuant to which all the DRDAs prepared almost identical Bye-laws. As regards the structure of DRDAs, District Magistrates are the Head of each DRDA and total funding is being done by the Central Government and State Government in the ratio of 70-30. Applying the test of funding and pervasive control which the State have over the DRDAs, there can be no dispute that the DRDA is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.Â

11. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that Clause 2(a) of the aforesaid Government Order indicates that rules and regulations of the State of U.P. pertaining to the service conditions would apply to the employees of the DRDA. Once Government Order dated 17.03.1994 has been passed, there is no doubt that all the benefits of service which are available to the State Government employees would be 3 WRIA No. 8779 of 2025 applicable to the employees of the DRDA and accordingly, leave encashment which is also a service benefit granted on superannuation of the Government employees, as provided for in the Fundamental Rules, would also be applicable to the petitioner.

12. Considering the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Pitambar (supra) the question before the Division Bench was as to whether extension of date of superannuation would be applicable to the employees of the DRDA also. It was also to be considered as to whether Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules would govern the service conditions of the members of the DRDA. The said judgment was passed without taking note of the Government Order dated 17.03.1994, which is vital link between the service conditions of the employees of DRDA marking equivalence to the service conditions of the employees of the State Government.

13. Accordingly, we find that by not considering Government Order dated 17.03.1994, the judgment in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Pitambar (supra) the judgment was rendered in ignorance of the said Government Order and consequently be held per in curium and not a good law to be followed subsequently.

14. Apart from the above, this Court finds that other similarly situated employees have already been granted benefit of leave encashment and consequently, the petitioner could not be adversely discriminated by rejecting his case for grant of the same.

15. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that petitioner is entitled for grant of leave encashment, accordingly, present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.09.2024 is set aside.

16. The respondents are directed to make payment of amount of leave encashment to the petitioner, expeditiously, say within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment."

8. As indicated herein above, the aforesaid judgment has been upheld by Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Supreme Court.

9. It is also relevant that the aspect of applicability of rules applicable upon state government employees being applicable upon employees of DRDA has also been considered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kumari Kalyani Mehrotra.

10. It is therefore evident that the petitioner's case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments and they would be entitled for leave encashment. 4 WRIA No. 8779 of 2025

11.In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 8th January 2025 pertaining to both the petitioners are therefore quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to make payment of leave encashment due to petitioners expeditiously within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority. Petitioners shall also be entitled for interest @ 8% per annum from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. December 3, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Ms. Ninnie Srivastava learned counsel for petitioners and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 8th January 2025 whereby petitioner's claim for leave encashment has been denied.

3. It has been submitted that petitioners were appointed in the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) and subsequently superannuated on 31st January 2013 and 31st July 2014, respectively. Except for leave encashment, all remaining post-retiral benefits were paid to them and therefore grievance with regard to same was raised earlier also before this court and in terms of directions issued, the impugned order has been passed denying the aforesaid benefit on the ground that petitioners are not entitled to for the same since there is no provision in the DRDA for payment of any leave encashment nor are the petitioners covered by any rules made in terms of Article 309 of Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Full Bench of this court in the case of Km. Kalyani Mehrotra versus State of U.P., 2021 [4] A.D.J 397[F.B.] to submit that the aforesaid aspect has already been dealt with by the Full Bench and it has been held that rules and regulations as applicable upon government employees are also applicable to the employees of DRDA. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on 2 WRIA No. 8779 of 2025 judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ A. No. 12721 of 2024 as upheld in Special Appeal Defective No.210 of 2025 as well as by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition [Civil] Diary No. 48921 of 2025. It is therefore submitted that since the aforesaid aspect has already been concluded by Full Bench as well as judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court upheld till Supreme Court, petitioners are entitled for the same.

5. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner but could not distinguish the aforesaid judgments.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's claim for leave encashment has been denied in view of the twin grounds as indicated herein above.

7. The aforesaid aspect has already been considered and decided by Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Tiwari (supra) in the following manner:- " 9. It is noticed that undisputedly the petitioner is an employee of DRDA which was earlier created in each district of the State under the directions of the Government of India for ensuring effective implementation of rural development programmes. Formal creation of DRDA was contemplated under the Office Memorandum of the Government of India dated 24.10.1980, which provided that DRDA will be created as a Society in each district. The State Government, vide Government Order dated

24.11.1980, created DRDAs in each district. The Central Government issued an Office Memorandum dated 10.03.1981 pursuant to which all the DRDAs prepared almost identical Bye-laws. As regards the structure of DRDAs, District Magistrates are the Head of each DRDA and total funding is being done by the Central Government and State Government in the ratio of 70-30. Applying the test of funding and pervasive control which the State have over the DRDAs, there can be no dispute that the DRDA is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.Â

11. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that Clause 2(a) of the aforesaid Government Order indicates that rules and regulations of the State of U.P. pertaining to the service conditions would apply to the employees of the DRDA. Once Government Order dated 17.03.1994 has been passed, there is no doubt that all the benefits of service which are available to the State Government employees would be 3 WRIA No. 8779 of 2025 applicable to the employees of the DRDA and accordingly, leave encashment which is also a service benefit granted on superannuation of the Government employees, as provided for in the Fundamental Rules, would also be applicable to the petitioner.

12. Considering the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Pitambar (supra) the question before the Division Bench was as to whether extension of date of superannuation would be applicable to the employees of the DRDA also. It was also to be considered as to whether Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules would govern the service conditions of the members of the DRDA. The said judgment was passed without taking note of the Government Order dated 17.03.1994, which is vital link between the service conditions of the employees of DRDA marking equivalence to the service conditions of the employees of the State Government.

13. Accordingly, we find that by not considering Government Order dated 17.03.1994, the judgment in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Pitambar (supra) the judgment was rendered in ignorance of the said Government Order and consequently be held per in curium and not a good law to be followed subsequently.

14. Apart from the above, this Court finds that other similarly situated employees have already been granted benefit of leave encashment and consequently, the petitioner could not be adversely discriminated by rejecting his case for grant of the same.

15. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that petitioner is entitled for grant of leave encashment, accordingly, present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.09.2024 is set aside.

16. The respondents are directed to make payment of amount of leave encashment to the petitioner, expeditiously, say within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment."

8. As indicated herein above, the aforesaid judgment has been upheld by Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Supreme Court.

9. It is also relevant that the aspect of applicability of rules applicable upon state government employees being applicable upon employees of DRDA has also been considered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kumari Kalyani Mehrotra.

10. It is therefore evident that the petitioner's case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments and they would be entitled for leave encashment. 4 WRIA No. 8779 of 2025

11.In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 8th January 2025 pertaining to both the petitioners are therefore quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to make payment of leave encashment due to petitioners expeditiously within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority. Petitioners shall also be entitled for interest @ 8% per annum from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. December 3, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench