Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Minor ... vs Bideshi Ram on 9 October, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:62164-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 61 of 2016
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Minor Irrigation Deptt. U P And Ors.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Bideshi Ram
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
K.K. Pandey
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
1. Heard learned Chief Standing Counsel for State appellants. None is present on behalf of the respondent.
2. This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 20.08.2015 passed in writ petition no.5982 (S/S) of 2013. The respondent/ petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking the following main relief :-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opp. Parties to allow the benefits of revised pay protection to the petitioner and also calculate his previous service rendered in ATL from 06.08.1981 to 20.11.1990 for pensionary benefit in the light of the judgment/ order dated 04.04.2012 in writ petition no.410/SB/2010 "Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others" passed by this Hon'ble Court and the amount of revised gratuity due to the petitioner and to release the arrears of salary, gratuity, pensionary benefit along with the interest as per the market rate to be compounded periodically from the due date till the date of actual payment within a short reasonable period to be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. The respondent/ petitioner was earlier employed in the Auto Tractor Limited, Pratapgarh and was subsequently absorbed in the Minor Irrigation Department. The relief prayed for in the writ petition and the issue involved herein infact came up for consideration before a Full Bench, to which following questions were referred :-
"(i) Whether the Division Bench judgments in the case of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (surpa); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (surpa); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (surpa); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and others versus Amar Pal Singh, [Special Appeal (Defective) No.646 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2016] have correctly held that the benefit of past services rendered by retrenched employees of Auto Tractors Limited, who have been subsequently absorbed in government service, such as the petitioner, would count towards their qualifying service for purposes of calculation of retiral dues payable by the State Government?
(ii) Whether a retrenched employee of Auto Tractors Limited such as the petitioner, who got absorbed in State Government Service subsequently as per the relevant rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules 1991 are entitled to count their previous services rendered by them under the erstwhile employer i.e. the Auto Tractors Limited, for calculation of qualifying service for purposes of retirement benefits under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and other ancillary rules and Government Orders in this regard as also Government Orders dated 11.11.1993 and 10.07.1998 as modified vide Government Order dated 28.12.2001?
(iii) Whether Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. versus Ram Shanker Gupta passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 553 of 2015 decided on 27.11.2015 is in conflict with the earlier decisions by Coordinate Benches rendered in the case of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (surpa); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (surpa); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (surpa); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and others versus Amar Pal Singh, [Special Appeal (Defective) No.646 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2016] or not? If so, which of the two sets of Division Bench judgment lays down the law correctly with regard to question No.2 as rephrased by us herein above."
4. The said questions were answered as under :-
"(i) The Division Bench judgments in the cases of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (surpa); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (surpa); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (surpa); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and others versus Amar Pal Singh do not lay down the law correctly on the question of counting of past services rendered by retrenched employees of ATL who have been subsequently absorbed in Government service, for the purposes of qualifying service for calculation of retiral dues payable by the State Government. They are not good law.
(ii) Retrenched employees of ATL such as the petitioner who got absorbed in the Government service subsequently as per the Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 are not entitled to count their previous services rendered by them under the erstwhile employer i.e., Auto Tractors Limited for computation of qualifying service for purposes of retirement benefits under the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 and other ancillary rules and Government Orders in this regard as also the Government Order dated 11.1.1993 and in fact the Government Order dated 10.07.1998 as modified on 28.12.2001 is not applicable to such employees.
(iii) The Division Bench judgment in the case of Ram Shanker Gupta (supra) is in conflict with the earlier decisions by Coordinate Benches in the cases of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (surpa); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (surpa); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (surpa); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and others versus Amar Pal Singh. It is the decision in Ram Shanker Gupta (supra) which lays down the law correctly and for the reasons already discussed, the other decisions do not lay down the law correctly on the subject with regard to question no. (ii)."
5. Paragraph 45 and 46 of the judgment by the Full Bench is also quoted herein-below :-
"45. Reference is answered accordingly.
46. Ordinarily after answering the questions before us, we remit the matter back to the writ Court, but, it would be a futile exercise in the facts of this case, as nothing survives for further adjudication by the writ Court. The very basis of the claim of petitioner having been found to be non-existent on facts as also in law, we do not see as to why we should send the matter back to the writ Court for passing final orders. In our view, as all the issues have already been decided by us, we dismiss the writ petition."
6. In view of the aforesaid, as the writ petition of the respondent/ petitioner was allowed with reference to the decision in writ petition no. 1494 (S/S) of 2012; Sheel Virendra Nath vs. State of U.P. and ors. which was based on the decision of this Court in the case of writ petition no. 410 (S/B) of 2010; Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and ors., which has already been considered by the Full Bench, and declared to be not good law, accordingly, we dispose of this appeal in terms of the Full Bench judgment dated 18.05.2023 and set aside the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2015.
7. We, however, make it clear that if any benefit has already been extended to the respondent/ petitioner, the same shall not be taken back purely in the facts of this case specially as the respondent/ petitioner has retired way back on 30.04.2011.
(Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
October 9, 2025
Arnima
