Allahabad High Court
Ram Naresh Tripathi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 26 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148293
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 59191 of 2017
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Order on Recall/Restoration Application No. 7 of 2023
1. This is an application for recall of order dated 21.02.2023, whereby the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this application. The cause shown for non-appearance is sufficient. The order dated 21.02.2023 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number. The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order on Writ Petition
1. Heard Sri Uday Prakash Dev Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.M. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. During pendency of this writ petition, Petitioner-1, Ram Naresh Tripathi has died. According to learned counsel for petitioners, an application is already filed to brought on record his legal heirs, however, as per record no such application is available.
3. Petitioners have attained age of superannuation way back in the year 1998 while working in U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited. Nature of their appointment was Workcharge employee. During their service admittedly they were never regularized. The claim of petitioners was based on Government Orders dated 01.07.1989 and 02.0.2005 that employees who have already worked for more than 10 years, may be regularized and their case may be considered for pension since allegedly same benefit was granted to temporary employees.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents has placed reliance on paras 4, 6 and 9 of counter affidavit, which are reproduced hereinafter:
?4- That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the Writ Petition are not admitted, as stated, hence denied. In reply, it is submitted that in the U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited, only of those employees are on deputation, who were appointed on temporary basis in the Cement Factory. The employees appointed Workcharge/Standing Order have not been treated as appointed in the Corporation on deputation. It is further submitted that as the petitioners were appointed under Workcharge/Standing Order, they do not come within the purview of Government Servant. As per Article 361 of the Civil Services Rules, the following provisions have been framed for the regular services:-
First - The service must be under Government.
Second - The employment must be substantive and permanent.
Third - The service must be paid by Government
However, as per the above provisions, the services of the petitioners are not covered with the aforesaid provisions. Only those employees shall be treated in the Government Service, who have been appointed under the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that vide Office Order No.4239/77-1-2006-86(Writ)/2005, dated 12.12.2006, it has been made clear that the appointments of the employees made under Standing Order/Workcharge as are not regular, as such, they are not entitled for the pension.?
?6- That the contents of paragraph no.6 of the Writ Petition are not admitted, as stated, hence denied. In reply, it is submitted that the services of the employees appointed on different dates on temporary basis in Government Cement Factory, Churk/Dala, on being established the U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited, since 01.04.1972, the same were transferred to the Corporation. However, as a result of which, the services of those employees have been treated as deputation since 01.04.1972 and their deputation has been extended till 31.03.1981, as such, all those employees, from the date of their appointments till 31.03.1981 were in Government service. Due to passage of time, vide Office Order No.Sa.-3-1152/Das-915-89, dated 01.07.1989 issued by the Finance Department (Samanya) Anubhag-3 of the State Government, the temporary employees have also been given the benefits of post retiral benefits.?
?9-That the contents of paragraph no.11 of the Writ Petition are not admitted, as stated, hence denied. In reply, it is submitted that the willing employees of the State Government working on deputation in Upkrams, companies, corporations etc. of the State Government, the provisions to merge them permanently have been framed vide Government Order No.G-2-3573/Das-925-60, dated 04.03.1971 issued by the Finance Department (Samanya) Anubhag-2 and on passage of time, on retirement/death of the temporary employees, regarding pensionary benefits, vide Government Order No.Sa.-3-1152/Das-915-89, dated 01.07.1989, it has been provisioned that on being retired on superannuation, after completing 10 years continuous services, the Government Servant shall be entitled for the pension, as such, it is clear that the above facility was only for the Government Servants, while the services of the petitioners were under the Standing Order/Workcharge, as such, it cannot be treated as regular services, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for pension.?
5. I have considered the above submissions and admittedly the three conditions which are specifically mentioned in above referred para 4 that employment must be substantive and permanent, service must be paid by Government and service must be under Government, are not complied. A relaxation was granted to employees appointed on temporary basis, however, admittedly in the present case petitioners were not temporary employees. Therefore, no benefit can be granted to petitioners of aforesaid Government orders.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in Gorakh Nath Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016:AHC:65037. However, in similar circumstances, recently this Court while considering a review application in Keshwanand Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC:140710 has observed as under:
?6. In Hriday Narain Pandey (supra), this Court has considered and distinguished the facts of the case passed by Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Shiv Jag Sharma & Ors, 2023:AHC:155290:DB, wherein judgment passed in Gorakh Nath Pandey (supra) was considered and followed, therefore, Court has distinguished Gorakh Nath Pandey (supra) on law as well as on facts of the present case also in the order under review.
7. Court has taken note of two relevant facts which was part of the impugned order that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation Ltd. and he was not absorped, therefore, it is not a case where there is an error apparent on the face of record. Under the garb of a review application, even an erroneous decision cannot be reheard and corrected. On this ground only review application can be rejected. However, since other arguments were raised during hearing, therefore, Court deals with the same on facts also. Relevant paragraph 20 of the judgment in Hriday Narain Pandey (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:
?20. So far as judgment of Shiv Jag Sharma and others (supra) is concerned, it was in regard to grant of pension to retired employees of U.P. Rajya Cement Nigam Ltd. at Churk and petitioners therein were already absorbed in State services, whereas petitioners herein were admittedly not absorbed, therefore, facts of Shiv Jag Sharma and others (supra) are distinguishable and it are not applicable to present case.?
8. It is the consistent case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Junior Clerk on Work Charged Establishment on a consolidated pay.
9. It is further case of review applicant that he was promoted to Clerk 4th Grade vide order dated 1.10.1980, however, it is not supported by any document and as such he remained as a work charged employee, therefore, by impugned order, in the writ petition, the petitioner was neither considered on deputation, nor he was absorbed, therefore, there was no reason to grant him pension.
10. The above facts distinguished the case of petitioner from petitioners of Gorakh Nath Pandey (supra) and Shiv Jag Sharma (supra), where they were already absorbed and, therefore, question of pension was determined in their favour, therefore, Court is of the opinion that there is no error apparent on record in the order under review on facts as well as on law.?
7. In view of above, no circumstance exists to take a contrary view. The writ petition is accordingly abated qua to Petitioner-1, Ram Naresh Tripathi and dismissed qua to Petitioner-2, Ram Surat Tripathi.
August 26, 2025
AK
