Allahabad High Court
Naresh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar ... on 29 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:67234
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 12603 of 2025
Naresh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag -4, Lko. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Sarvesh Kumar Saxena, Manish Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
(1) Heard Mr. Manish Misra and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Saxena, learned Counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Devesh Pathak, learned State Counsel for respondent/opposite party nos.1 and 2
(2) Petition has been filed challenging order dated 25.09.2025 rejecting petitioner's prayer for counting ad-hoc services w.e.f. 07.03.1995 as qualifying service for purposes of payment of pension and other post retiral dues.
(3) Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are that on 22.07.1988, the petitioner was engaged as Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) on daily wage basis and while continuing as such, vide order dated 11.03.2013, he along with similarly situated persons were given ad hoc status w.e.f. 07.03.1995 like one Sri Parmanand Mishra as per Rule 31 of U.P. Palika (Centralized Service) Rules, 1966. Subsequently, while continuing on work-charge establishment in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the services of the petitioner along with similarly situated Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) were regularized vide order dated 27.11.2015 under U.P. Palika (Centralized Services) (21st Amendment), Rules, 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2025. After retirement, the petitioner had sought pension and other retirement dues in terms of Old Pension Scheme, which has been rejected vide order dated 25.09.2025 inter alia on the ground that since the services of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 27.11.2015, therefore, he is entitled for New Pension Scheme. It is this order dated 25.09.2025, which has been assailed in the instant writ petition.
(4) Assailing the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, learned Counsel representing the petitioner has drawn attention upon the decision of this Court rendered in Writ-A No. 11333 of 2021 : Badri Narayan Agnihotri Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, decided on 01.12.2021 and has argued that the issue involved in the instant writ petition has already been adjudicated and decided by this Court vide judgment/order dated 01.12.2021 (supra), whereby this Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the authorities to release the current pension, arrears of pension and other unpaid retiral dues to the petitioner in accordance with the old pension scheme. According to the learned Counsel, this judgment/order dated 01.12.2021 was upheld by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 375 of 2022, decided on 16.05.2022 and by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 29048 of 2022 : the State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Badri Narayan Agnihotri and others, decided on 21.11.2022 as well as review filed by State of U.P. as Review Petition No.36206 of 2023 also dismissed on 22.11.2023. In this backdrop, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of old pension is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is liable to be entitled to get pension under old pension scheme in terms of the judgment/order dated 01.12.2021 (supra).
(5) Learned Standing Counsel representing the State does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was given the ad hoc status w.e.f. 07.03.1995 vide order dated 11.03.2013 and while continuing as such, his services were regularized w.e.f. 27.11.2015 along with similarly situated persons and he, while continuing as such, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2025. They also does not dispute the fact that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment and order of this Court dated 01.12.2021 (supra), which has been affirmed by the Apex Court vide judgment/order dated 21.11.2022.
(6) Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record available before this Court, it is required to be noted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) on daily wage basis on 22.07.1988 in Nagar Palika, Bahraich. Subsequently, vide order dated 11.05.2010, in terms of identical person like Sri Parmanand Mishra, Junior Engineer (Jal), the petitioner including similarly situated persons were given ad-hoc status with effect from 07.03.1995 as per Rule 31 of U.P. Palika (Centralized Service) Rules, 1966. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.03.2013, the Director, Local Bodies, Lucknow, U.P. regularized the services of similarly situated Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) including the petitioner against the vacant posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical). After completion of service tenure, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2025.
(7) Rule 21-A of the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralized) Services (Twenty First Amendment) Rules, 2003 reveals that such of the ad hoc employee who have completed 3 years of continuous service, a right is conferred upon them to be considered for appointment, in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his service record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the provisions contained in these Rules.
(8) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) w.e.f. 07.03.1995 vide order dated 11.03.2013, which attained finality and on completion of three years of services in the month of March, 1998, he became eligible to be considered for appointment in permanent/temporary vacancy as available and his suitability was to be considered on the basis of his service record.
(9) It is not in dispute that much before the New Pension Scheme came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2005, the rights were confirmed in favour of the employee seeking regular employment in terms of Rule 21-A (iii) of the Rules, 2003. It is not the case of the respondents that there was no vacancy, permanent or temporary, available against which his candidature would have been considered for regular appointment prior to his order for regular appointment passed by the authorities on 27.11.2015.
(10) The coordinate bench has passed the orders in Writ A No. 1350 of 2024 dated 20.03.2024 and the other orders were also passed in identically situated persons, wherein, the Special Appeal was preferred bearing Special Appeal No. 607 of 2024 alongwith the other connected matters and against the order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 607 of 2024, the State has preferred SLP bearing no. 22890-22893/2025 before the Apex Court and that has been disposed of in the light of earlier judgment and order passed in SLP Diary No. 29048 of 2022. Further the several other Special Appeals were also filed before this Court bearing Special Appeal No. 230 of 2024 alongwith other connected Special Appeals, wherein, the judgment and order was passed on 15.09.2025 while according the benefit of the judgment and order rendered in Badri Narayan Agnihotri(supra) and Chandra Mohan Yadav(supra)
(11) Considering the aforesaid facts and keeping in mind the decision of this Court rendered on 01.12.2021 (supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 01.12.2021 (supra), which has been affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 21.11.2022 (supra).
(12) In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.09.2025 issued by the respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. The competent authority/respondent no.2-the Director, Local Body, Lucknow, is directed to release the current pension, arrears of pension and other unpaid retiral dues to the petitioner in accordance with the old pension scheme, expeditiously, say, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
October 29, 2025
Mayank
