High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The instant petition has been filed with following main relief: (1) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing impugned order dated 26.07.2023 up to the extent, whereby the service period of petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 to 15.05.2012, has not been counted and taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the pension of the petitioner who retired from the post of Nayab Tahsildar and he is entitled to get the pension of the said post contained as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition in accordance with law. (2) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.12.2013 passed by opposite party no.3 as contained in Annexure no.6 so far as it relates to decline to provide the consequential benefits after giving the seniority w.e.f. 05.06.1986 to the petitioner in accordance with law. (3) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to fix the pension of petitioner after considering the 36 years 1 month and 26 days' service rendered by him on the post of Collection Amin as well as on promotional posts of Revenue Inspector and Nayab Tahsildar and modify the order dated 26.07.2023 by mentioning correct date of service of petitioner as 05.06.1986 instead of 16.05.2012 which is illegal and incorrect accordingly in regard of the order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Collector Sultanpur and thereafter provide all the post retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity, remaining amount of leave encashment and other admissible dues to him along with interest @ 12% taking into fact that his services has been regularized w.e.f. 05.06.1986 and the seniority has been fixed from the above said date and the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector and thereafter on the post of Nayab Tahsildar and has retired from the above said post on 31.07.2022 after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years as the similarly situated persons namely Mohammad Usman Ansari, Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Rajendra Prasad Dubey, Ram Naresh Mishra, Bindeshwari Prasad, Daya Ram Verma and Chandra Bhan Singh and other similarly situated persons have been provided retiral benefits and they are getting pension in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

4. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide the difference of arrears of salary by providing the selection grade after completion of 8 years of service, First Promotional Pay scale after 14 years of service, Super Selection Grade after 19 years of service, second promotional pay scale after 24 years of service and third promotional pay scale after completing 25 years of service as the services of the petitioner has been treated as regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 05.06.1986 taking into account his seniority as on date along with interest as admissible under law in accordance with law.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had been selected for appointment as Collection Amin in the year 1986. One Pratap Narain Pandey, of the same select list as the petitioner, filed Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001; In re: Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was allowed on 19.08.2006 and he was directed to be treated to be in a regular service since 05.06.1986 on the post of Collection Amin. A copy of the judgement in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) has been filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition.

4. The petitioner claiming himself to be similarly circumstanced, filed Writ Petition No.7575 (S/S) of 2011; In re: Prem Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and others. This Court vide judgement and order dated 17.10.2011 disposed of the writ petition by holding that the petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of the judgement in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra).

5. In pursuance thereof, the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013, a copy of which is Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, considering the judgement of this Court as well as the judgement of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) directed that the petitioner would be treated as a regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 05.06.1986 and would be entitled for seniority and other benefits.

6. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was given regular appointment as Collection Amin vide order dated 31.05.2012, which is a part of Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.

7. The petitioner subsequently retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022, but he was not granted the pension and other benefits including the benefit of Assured Career Pay Scheme (A.C.P.).

8. In pursuance thereof, the order impugned dated 26.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, has been passed indicating that as the petitioner was made regular vide order dated 16.05.2012 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022 as such he does not have the requisite qualifying service of being given the pension.

9. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.

10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Writ Court vide judgement and order dated 17.10.2011 had granted the benefit to the petitioner of the judgement of this Court in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) and in pursuance thereof, the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 had held the petitioner as being a regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 05.06.1986 along with seniority and in pursuance thereof a formal order for his regular appointment was passed as such, the petitioner would be entitled for all benefits w.e.f. 05.06.1986 considering the order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the competent authority, which order still stands good as of date and the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not having requisite length of service on account of his regularization in May, 2012 cannot be said to be an order which wipes out the previous service of the petitioner rendered since 05.06.1986 keeping in view the judgement of the Writ Court and the order of the competent authority.

11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit, argues that as the petitioner has only been regularized in May, 2012 and he retired on 31.07.2022, consequently, the petitioner does not have 10 years of service so as to entail payment of pension and other retiral dues and further as the petitioner is not having requisite length of service subsequent to his regularization, he is also not entitled for the benefit of A.C.P.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record, it emerges that with respect to a person similarly circumstanced, namely Pratap Narain Pandey, a judgement had been passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001; In re: Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, copy of which is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, whereby this Court held Pratap Narain Pandey to be a regular Collection Amin in service since 05.06.1986. The petitioner claiming the similar benefit as that of Pratap Narain Pandey had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7575 (S/S) of 2011 and this Court vide judgement and order dated 17.10.2011 held the petitioner entitled to the benefit of the judgement of this Court in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra). In pursuance thereof, the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 granted benefit of the judgement of this Court to petitioner by treating him as a regular Collection Amin since 05.06.1986 with attendant benefit of seniority. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022. The opposite parties have not granted pension and other benefits of A.C.P. on the ground that as the services of the petitioner have only been regularized in May, 2012 and he has retired on 31.07.2022, consequently, he does not have requisite 10 years service, which is required for payment of pension and other retiral dues and also does not have requisite service for grant of the A.C.P. This is the reasoning, which emerges from a perusal of the order impugned dated 26.07.2023.

13. A perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that the opposite parties have patently erred in passing the said order inasmuch as they have failed to consider that the petitioner already stands regularized by the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 w.e.f. 05.06.1986 with benefit of seniority. Thus, the entire service rendered by the petitioner or even if not rendered w.e.f. 05.06.1986 yet considering the judgement of the Writ Court dated 17.10.2011, once the said benefit has been extended by the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 and admittedly the said order has attained finality, consequently, the same entails counting of entire services of petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 and thus it cannot be said that petitioner did not have requisite length of service once the entire service of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 till his retirement on 31.07.2022 is to be counted for all practical purposes more particularly when the opposite parties themselves have granted the benefit of seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986.

14. The order impugned dated 26.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to count the entire period of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 considering the judgement of the Writ Court and the order of the competent authority dated 30.12.2013. The said period of service shall be counted for all purposes including payment of retrial dues to the petitioner, which would also include pension. The petitioner would also be entitled for benefit of A.C.P. flowing from counting of his services w.e.f. 05.06.1986 with all consequential benefits.

15. Let the order be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

16. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The instant petition has been filed with following main relief: (1) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing impugned order dated 26.07.2023 up to the extent, whereby the service period of petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 to 15.05.2012, has not been counted and taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the pension of the petitioner who retired from the post of Nayab Tahsildar and he is entitled to get the pension of the said post contained as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition in accordance with law. (2) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.12.2013 passed by opposite party no.3 as contained in Annexure no.6 so far as it relates to decline to provide the consequential benefits after giving the seniority w.e.f. 05.06.1986 to the petitioner in accordance with law. (3) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to fix the pension of petitioner after considering the 36 years 1 month and 26 days' service rendered by him on the post of Collection Amin as well as on promotional posts of Revenue Inspector and Nayab Tahsildar and modify the order dated 26.07.2023 by mentioning correct date of service of petitioner as 05.06.1986 instead of 16.05.2012 which is illegal and incorrect accordingly in regard of the order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Collector Sultanpur and thereafter provide all the post retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity, remaining amount of leave encashment and other admissible dues to him along with interest @ 12% taking into fact that his services has been regularized w.e.f. 05.06.1986 and the seniority has been fixed from the above said date and the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector and thereafter on the post of Nayab Tahsildar and has retired from the above said post on 31.07.2022 after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years as the similarly situated persons namely Mohammad Usman Ansari, Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Rajendra Prasad Dubey, Ram Naresh Mishra, Bindeshwari Prasad, Daya Ram Verma and Chandra Bhan Singh and other similarly situated persons have been provided retiral benefits and they are getting pension in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

4. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide the difference of arrears of salary by providing the selection grade after completion of 8 years of service, First Promotional Pay scale after 14 years of service, Super Selection Grade after 19 years of service, second promotional pay scale after 24 years of service and third promotional pay scale after completing 25 years of service as the services of the petitioner has been treated as regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 05.06.1986 taking into account his seniority as on date along with interest as admissible under law in accordance with law.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had been selected for appointment as Collection Amin in the year 1986. One Pratap Narain Pandey, of the same select list as the petitioner, filed Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001; In re: Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was allowed on 19.08.2006 and he was directed to be treated to be in a regular service since 05.06.1986 on the post of Collection Amin. A copy of the judgement in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) has been filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition.

4. The petitioner claiming himself to be similarly circumstanced, filed Writ Petition No.7575 (S/S) of 2011; In re: Prem Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and others. This Court vide judgement and order dated 17.10.2011 disposed of the writ petition by holding that the petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of the judgement in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra).

5. In pursuance thereof, the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013, a copy of which is Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, considering the judgement of this Court as well as the judgement of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) directed that the petitioner would be treated as a regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 05.06.1986 and would be entitled for seniority and other benefits.

6. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was given regular appointment as Collection Amin vide order dated 31.05.2012, which is a part of Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.

7. The petitioner subsequently retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022, but he was not granted the pension and other benefits including the benefit of Assured Career Pay Scheme (A.C.P.).

8. In pursuance thereof, the order impugned dated 26.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, has been passed indicating that as the petitioner was made regular vide order dated 16.05.2012 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022 as such he does not have the requisite qualifying service of being given the pension.

9. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.

10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Writ Court vide judgement and order dated 17.10.2011 had granted the benefit to the petitioner of the judgement of this Court in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) and in pursuance thereof, the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 had held the petitioner as being a regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 05.06.1986 along with seniority and in pursuance thereof a formal order for his regular appointment was passed as such, the petitioner would be entitled for all benefits w.e.f. 05.06.1986 considering the order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the competent authority, which order still stands good as of date and the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not having requisite length of service on account of his regularization in May, 2012 cannot be said to be an order which wipes out the previous service of the petitioner rendered since 05.06.1986 keeping in view the judgement of the Writ Court and the order of the competent authority.

11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit, argues that as the petitioner has only been regularized in May, 2012 and he retired on 31.07.2022, consequently, the petitioner does not have 10 years of service so as to entail payment of pension and other retiral dues and further as the petitioner is not having requisite length of service subsequent to his regularization, he is also not entitled for the benefit of A.C.P.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record, it emerges that with respect to a person similarly circumstanced, namely Pratap Narain Pandey, a judgement had been passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001; In re: Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, copy of which is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, whereby this Court held Pratap Narain Pandey to be a regular Collection Amin in service since 05.06.1986. The petitioner claiming the similar benefit as that of Pratap Narain Pandey had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7575 (S/S) of 2011 and this Court vide judgement and order dated 17.10.2011 held the petitioner entitled to the benefit of the judgement of this Court in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra). In pursuance thereof, the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 granted benefit of the judgement of this Court to petitioner by treating him as a regular Collection Amin since 05.06.1986 with attendant benefit of seniority. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022. The opposite parties have not granted pension and other benefits of A.C.P. on the ground that as the services of the petitioner have only been regularized in May, 2012 and he has retired on 31.07.2022, consequently, he does not have requisite 10 years service, which is required for payment of pension and other retiral dues and also does not have requisite service for grant of the A.C.P. This is the reasoning, which emerges from a perusal of the order impugned dated 26.07.2023.

13. A perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that the opposite parties have patently erred in passing the said order inasmuch as they have failed to consider that the petitioner already stands regularized by the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 w.e.f. 05.06.1986 with benefit of seniority. Thus, the entire service rendered by the petitioner or even if not rendered w.e.f. 05.06.1986 yet considering the judgement of the Writ Court dated 17.10.2011, once the said benefit has been extended by the competent authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 and admittedly the said order has attained finality, consequently, the same entails counting of entire services of petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 and thus it cannot be said that petitioner did not have requisite length of service once the entire service of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 till his retirement on 31.07.2022 is to be counted for all practical purposes more particularly when the opposite parties themselves have granted the benefit of seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986.

14. The order impugned dated 26.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to count the entire period of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 considering the judgement of the Writ Court and the order of the competent authority dated 30.12.2013. The said period of service shall be counted for all purposes including payment of retrial dues to the petitioner, which would also include pension. The petitioner would also be entitled for benefit of A.C.P. flowing from counting of his services w.e.f. 05.06.1986 with all consequential benefits.

15. Let the order be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

16. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench