State of U.P. Thru. Prin.,Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag -4 Lko and 2 Others Vs Dinesh Rai

State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas …..Petitioners(s) Anubhag-3 Civil Secrt.Lko. and another Versus Rashid Saeed and another …..Respondents(s)

¶33

With

¶34

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 237 of 2024

¶35

State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas …..Petitioners(s) Anubhag-4 Lko. and another Versus

¶36

Manishankar Srivastava …..Respondents(s)

¶37

With

¶38

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 238 of 2024

¶39

SPLA No. 230 of 2024 and connected matters 3 State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas …..Petitioners(s) Anubhag-4 U.P. Govt. Lko. and another Versus Manoj Kumar Srivastava …..Respondents(s) With SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 239 of 2024 State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag-4 …..Petitioners(s) Lko and another Versus Ashok Kumar Singh …..Respondents(s)

¶40

With

¶41

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 240 of 2024

¶42

State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas …..Petitioners(s) Anubhag 4 Govt. of U.P. Lko. and another Versus Syed Rizwan Haider Zaidi …..Respondents(s)

¶43

With

¶44

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 241 of 2024

¶45

State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas …..Petitioners(s) Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 others Versus Ashok Kumar Srivastava …..Respondents(s)

¶46

With SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 242 of 2024

¶47

State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas …..Petitioners(s) Deptt. Lko and another

¶48

Versus

¶49

Ram Bajrangi Lal	4	SPLA No. 230 of 2024 and connected matters …..Respondents(s)

¶50

With

¶51

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 243 of 2024 State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Urban …..Petitioners(s) Development U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and another Versus Hari Govind Prasad …..Respondents(s) With

¶52

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 656 of 2024

¶53

State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Anubhag 4 Lko. and another	Nagar Vikas		…..Petiti	oners(s)
	Versus
Yogendra Kumar Dixit			…..Respon	dents(s)
	With
SPECIAL APPEAL D	EFECTIVE	No. - 65	7 of 2024
State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Lko and another	Nagar Vikas		…..Petiti	oners(s)
	Versus
Kaushlendra K. Kumar Rastogi	and another		…..Respon	dents(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Sri Vim	al Sriva	stava (AA	G) with
	Pratul	Kumar	Srivastava	(S.C.),
	Mohit Singh (S	Jauhari .C.)	(S.C.), An	iruddha
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Manish	Mishra,	Sarvesh	Kumar
	Saxena,	Gaur	av Upa	dhyaya,
	Mridula	Saxena,	Narendra	Pratap
	Singh fo	r Krishna	Kumar Sin	gh

¶54

SPLA No. 230 of 2024 and connected matters

¶55

5

¶56

Chief Justice's Court

¶57

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶58

This bunch of special appeals, led by Special Appeal No. 230 of 2024 : State of U.P. Vs. Dinesh Rai, arise from similar circumstances, wherein all the respondents, who were serving with different municipal bodies, were accorded ad-hoc status prior to 01.04.2005 and their orders of regularisation were passed after 01.04.2005.

¶59

The respondents filed the petitions seeking benefit of Old Pension Scheme. The learned Single Judges in different petitions passed orders giving benefit to the respondents relying on various judgements passed by this Court including Badri Narayan Agnihotri Vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ-A No. 11333 of 2021 , decided on 01.12.2021, Vijay Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. : Writ-A No. 1318 of 2023, decided on 23.2.2023 and Jai Prakash Misra vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ-A No. 20411 of 2022 , decided on 22.02.2023. The sum and substance of the relief granted is that the respondents have been held entitled to the benefit of Old Pension Scheme.

¶60

In the present special appeals, submissions were made seeking to question the validity of the orders passed by learned Single Judges, however, it was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the judgement in the case of Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) has been upheld in Special Appeal No. 375 of 2022: State of U.P. Vs. Badri Narayan Agnihotri , decided on 16.05.2022 and the Special Leave Petition arising from the said judgement being SLP (Civil) Diary No. 29048 of 2022 : State of U.P. and another Vs. Badri Narayan Agnihotri and others , has been dismissed on 21.11.2022 and a review petition has also been dismissed on 22.11.2023.

¶61

Initially submission was made on behalf of the appellants that in a similar matter Special Appeal No. 607 of 2024 : State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav , Special Leave Petition was pending before

¶62

SPLA No. 230 of 2024 and connected matters

¶63

6

¶64

Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said matter, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22890-22893 of 2025 has been dismissed on 22.08.2025, following the order in the case of Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) .

¶65

Submissions were made by learned Standing Counsel that in some cases, learned Single Judge has passed order following judgment in Dr. Shyam Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ-A No. 8968 of 2022 , decided on 17.02.2023, which judgment has no application to the facts of those cases. Such cases have been indicated as Special Appeal No. 231 of 2024, Special Appeal No. 232 of 2024, Special Appeal No. 233 of 2024 and Special Appeal No. 236 of 2024, wherein, though subsequently correction has been ordered and reference to judgement in the case of Jai Prakash Misra (supra) has been inserted, the reference to the judgement in the case of Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra) continued to remain in the final order.

¶66

Further submissions have been made that in Special Appeal No. 234 of 2024, Special Appeal No. 235 of 2024 and Special Appeal No. 243 of 2024, without reference to any order, based on the provisions, relief has been granted which is similar to what has been granted to other respondents.

¶67

Counsel for the respondents made submissions that the reference made in the case of Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra) in few of the cases was beyond the submissions and in the application, which was filed seeking correction, the correction was made but the reference made to the case of Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra) was not ordered to be deleted, however, the respondents are not relying on the order passed in the case of Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra) .

¶68

Further submission has been made that the issue, as raised in the present appeals, stands squarely covered by orders passed in the case of Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) and Chandra Mohan Yadav (supra) wherein the judgements passed by learned Single Judges have been upheld by the Division Benches and Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed and, therefore, the present appeals be also dismissed.

¶69

SPLA No. 230 of 2024 and connected matters

¶70

7

¶71

We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that all the respondents are governed by the same set of rules and have approached the Court under similar circumstances, i.e., their appointment on ad-hoc basis prior to 01.04.2005 and their regularisation subsequent thereto and that based on the applicable provisions, they were entitled to the Old Pension Scheme and had relied on the cases wherein relief was granted to similarly situated employees starting with the case of Parmanand Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ-A No. 10509 of 1997 , decided on 18.12.2005, special appeal against which, being Special Appeal No. 799 of 2006, was dismissed on 18.10.2006 and Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 11.01.2008. Subsequent thereto, order was passed in the case of Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) , Special Appeal and Special Leave Petition whereof were dismissed. Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in the case of Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) is by way of speaking order which reads as under:

¶72

“Respondent No. 1. - employee joined service on ad-hoc basis as Revenue Inspector in Municipal Corporation, Kanpur on 25.08.1989. Rule 21-A of the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralized) Services (Twenty First Amendment) Rules 2003 indicates that such of the ad-hoc employees 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 services record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the provisions contained in these Rules.

¶73

The learned counsel for the respondent contends that as he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Revenue Officer on 25.08.1989 and on completing 3 years of services in the month of August 1992, 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.

¶74

Much before the new Pension Scheme came into force with effect from 01.04.2005, the rights were confirmed in favour of the employee seeking regular employment in terms of Rule 21-A (iii). It was never the case of the petitioner that there was no vacancy, permanent or temporary, available against which his candidature would have been considered for regular appointment prior to his order of regular appointment passed by the authorities on 05.02.2008.

¶75

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties for quite some time, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned

¶76

SPLA No. 230 of 2024 and connected matters

¶77

8

¶78

order(s) passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”

¶79

Subsequent thereto, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Mohan Yadav (supra) at Allahabad, taking into consideration the judgements in the case of Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) and State of U.P. Vs. Raj Bahadur Pastor : Special Appeal No. 21 of 2022 , decided on 27.1.2022, granted similar relief and Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court by following the order in the case of Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) .

¶80

In view of the above fact situation, wherein there is no dispute on the fact that the cases of all the respondents are similar to that of Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) and Chandra Mohan Yadav (supra) , whose cases have attained finality upto Hon’ble Supreme Court, consequently, irrespective of the reliance placed by learned Single Judge in few of the cases in the case of Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra) , which apparently had no application, the respondents are entitled to same relief as was accorded to Badri Narayan Agnihotri (supra) and Chandra Mohan Yadav (supra) .

¶81

Consequently, with the above slight clarification, there is no substance in the special appeals. The same are, therefore, dismissed.

¶82

(Jaspreet Singh,J) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶83

September 15, 2025

¶84

Fahim/P.Sri.

¶85

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin.,Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag -4 Lko and 2 Others v. Dinesh Rai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin.,Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag -4 Lko and 2 Others v. Dinesh Rai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Km. Poonam Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Lko. Thru. Its Managing Director and Others vs Neeraj Saxena

State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lucknow and Others vs Ram Prasad Verma

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag 4 Lko. and Another Vs Yogendra Kumar Dixit

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko and Another Vs Kaushlendra K Kumar Rastogi and Another

Subodh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Lko. and 5 Others