Smt Geeta and 47 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Geeta and 47 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: respondent no.3 to consider and decide the petitioners' claim strictly in accordance with the law laid down in the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 (Writ-A No.10232 of 2010, Daroga Singh), within four weeks of receipt of a detailed representation which the petitioners undertake to file within ten days.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, similarly situated workmen/industrial employees of a Government Industrial Undertaking who were absorbed in the corporation, are covered by the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 in Writ-A No.10232 of 2010 (Daroga Singh) so as to be entitled to extension of all service benefits admissible in law, pursuant to Regulation 361 of Civil Service Regulations. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court holds that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 passed in Writ-A No.10232 of 2010 (Daroga Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others), which has attained finality upon being affirmed by the Special Appeal order of 03.08.2023, and accordingly the petitioners are entitled to all service benefits admissible in law.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no.3 is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners strictly, in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 (Writ-A No.10232 of 2010, Daroga Singh), within four weeks of the petitioners filing a detailed representation, which they undertake to file within ten days.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 52 — WRIT - A No. 17549 of 2025 — Smt Geeta and 47 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others — Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J. — decided November 21, 2025. Petitioners, 48 persons represented through counsel (Abhay Kumar Srivastava/Sakshi Srivastava; heard via Pradeep Kumar holding brief), filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to respondent no.1 to extend the benefit of the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 passed in Writ-A No.10232 of 2010 (Daroga Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others), affirmed vide order dated 03.08.2023 in Special Appeal No.707 of 2019, whereby it attained finality. Counsel contended, citing Regulation 361 of Civil Service Regulations and a judgment dated 07.10.2025 in Writ-A No.14972 of 2025 (Parshuram Singh), that the petitioners were likewise workmen/industrial employees of a Government Industrial Undertaking to be treated as civil servants/holders of civil post; affidavit paras 6-7 record deputation extended till 31.3.1981 by G.O. dated 17.6.1980 and absorption in the corporation thereafter, with service up to superannuation at 58 years. Learned Standing Counsel did not dispute that the petitioners were appointed in the factory at Churk and absorbed in the corporation. Finding the petitioners' case covered by the judgment dated 03.05.2018 which had attained finality, the Judge held them entitled to all service benefits admissible in law, directed respondent no.3 to consider and decide their claim strictly in accordance with the law laid down therein within four weeks of a detailed representation to be filed within ten days, and disposed of the writ petition.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 17549 of 2025

Smt Geeta And 47 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhay Kumar Srivastava, Sakshi Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 52

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The aforesaid writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to respondent no.1 to extend the benefit of the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 passed in Writ-A No.10232 of 2010 (Daroga Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others), which has been affirmed vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed in Special Appeal No.707 of 2019 (State of U.P. and others vs. Daroga Singh and 45 others).

Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of this Court dated 03.05.2018 has contended that petitioners are also similarly situated and as held in the said judgment that the workman/industrial employee of Government Industrial Undertaking has to be held to be a civil servant/holder of civil post under the Government so as to be covered within the meaning of Regulation 361 of Civil Service Regulations. He has further relied upon the judgment and order dated 07.10.2025 passed in Writ-A No.14972 of 2025 (Parshuram Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). He has contended that it is not disputed that petitioners were employee appointed in factory at Churk and subsequently absorbed in the corporation. The said averment has been made in para 6-7 of the affidavit filed along with writ petition. For ready reference, the same is quoted below:

WRIA No. 17549 of 2025

2

"6- That the deputation period of the petitioner's husband was extended in the corporation till 31-3-1981 by State Government vide order dated 17-6-1980 and the petitioner's husband was treated as government employees since the date of their duties, i.e. about 15-16 years of continuous service in the Government Cement Factory as per their appointment letters and from 31-3-1981 they was absorbed in the said corporation. A true and correct typed copy of the Government Order dated 17-6-1980 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.

7- That the petitioner's husband has discharged their duties in the said corporation up-to the age of their superannuation i.e. 58 years and thereafter they has retired from the services of the corporation."

Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

In view of the aforesaid, I find that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018, which has attained finality; and accordingly, are entitled to all the service benefit, as is admissible in law.

In view of the aforesaid, respondent no.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgment referred herein above. The petitioners undertake to file a detailed representation within a period of ten days from today and in the event, such a representation is filed, the respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioners strictly, in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 passed in Writ-A No.10232 of 2010 (Daroga Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others), within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the said representation.

With the aforesaid observation/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Siddharth Nandan,J.)

November 21, 2025

S.Prakash

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad