Secy. State Cane Service Authority Lko. and 4 Others vs Arvind Nath Tiwari

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 209 of 2026

Secy. State Cane Service Aut Others	hority	Lko. And 4	.....App	ellant(s)
		Versus
Arvind Nath Tiwari			.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: :	Tushar Mittal, Paraman Jaideep Srivastava, Sandeep Kumar Shukla	and Astha Manish	na Misra,

¶4

Court No. - 1

¶5

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

We have already disposed of another appeal of the appellants herein bearing Special Appeal No.205 of 2026 [Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lko/ Chairman State Cane Service Authority & Ors.] yesterday i.e. 06.05.2026 itself, which was also against the same judgment.

¶8

By the impugned judgment, two writ petitions were allowed i.e. Writ-A No.6421 of 1993 [Arvind Nath Tewari N-State vs. Cane Commissioner & Ors] and Writ-A No.8574 of 2023 [Arvind Nath Tiwari vs. Secy, State Cane Service Authority & Ors.]. The appeal arising out of Writ-A No.6421 of 1993 i.e. Special Appeal No.205 of 2026 has already been decided yesterday i.e. 06.05.2026 which reads as under:-

¶9

"1. Heard Shri Tushar Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manish Misra, and Shri Gaurav Upadhyay, learned counsels appearing for the sole respondent.

¶10

2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 6421 of 1993.

¶11

SPLA No. 209 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the father of the respondent-petitioner was employed as a Class-IV Seasonal Staff under the Appellant No. 4. It is not in dispute that some of the posts are seasonal and other are permanent. There is a channel of promotion from the seasonal post to the permanent post and even a seasonal employee is entitled to retiral benefits but not the same as permanent employee. The father of the respondent-petitioner died whereupon, an application for compassionate appointment was submitted and the respondent-petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Clerk on 17.01.1987, which he accepted. However, as he had a higher qualification, therefore, he moved an application on 04.12.1990 for being given appointment as per his qualification. Accordingly, the Deputy Cane Commissioner, who was also the ExOfficio Chairman of the Regional Cane Services Authority, appointed the respondentpetitioner on the permanent post of Clerk / Accountant vide order dated 21.01.1991. The aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the competent authority in July, 1992, accordingly, an order was issued on 31.10.1992 by the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Societies Ltd. for reconsidering the same, as, the recruiting / appointing authority of the permanent post of Clerk / Accountant was the Regional Cane Services Authority and not the Deputy Cane Commissioner. On a consideration of the aforesaid, an order dated 14.12.1992 was passed, cancelling the compassionate appointment of the respondent-petitioner on the post of permanent Clerk / Accountant, firstly, on the ground that the appointment was not made by the competent authority, secondly, the respondent-petitioner had already been given compassionate appointment on the post of Seasonal Clerk, therefore, there was no question of considering him for second compassionate appointment. Consequently, another order was passed on 22.06.1993.

¶14

4. Both these orders were challenged by the respondent-petitioner by means of the aforementioned writ petition and an interim order came to be passed on 18.08.1993 staying the aforesaid orders. As a consequence, the respondent-petitioner continued to work on the post of Clerk / Accountant and retired while working as such on the said post on 31.05.2021.

¶15

5. In the interregnum, the writ petition aforesaid, came to be dismissed for want of prosecution in 2012, a fact which could not come to the notice / knowledge of the appellants. According to the appellants, the respondent-petitioner was the only clerk available under the Appellant No. 4 for handling Court cases etc., and he himself did not inform the higher authorities about the dismissal of the writ petition, and it is only after his retirement in 2021 that an application for restoration of the petition was filed

¶16

SPLA No. 209 of 2026

¶17

3

¶18

on 29.11.2023, which was allowed on 21.05.2025. While moving the application for restoration, another writ petition was also filed by the respondent-petitioner seeking his retiral dues, which in fact, has not been paid. It is also informed that the aforesaid factum of dismissal of the aforementioned writ petition for want of prosecution came to knowledge of the appellants at the time of processing of the service records of the respondent-petitioner for preparation of documents pertaining to retiral dues in 2023. Reliance was placed on Paragraph 9 of the averments contained in the counter affidavit of the appellants filed before the Writ Court in this regard.

¶19

6. The contention of the appellants' counsel was that the Writ Court has ignored the legal position in this regard, as also, the factual position, and has allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the respondent-petitioner had worked for almost 32 years on the post of Clerk / Accountant, and as it was not a case of fraud or misrepresentation on his part in obtaining such appointment, therefore, it would be highly unreasonable to allow the orders impugned before the Writ Court to continue any further.

¶20

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has submitted that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of his client. As regards the first compassionate appointment, it was given on the post of Seasonal Clerk. As the respondent-petitioner had a higher qualification, therefore, he applied to the Deputy Cane Commissioner, who also happened to be the Chairman of the Regional Cane Services Authority, for considering his compassionate appointment to the higher post commensurate to his qualification, and accordingly, he came to be appointed as Clerk / Accountant. If the matter was required to be sent to the Regional Cane Services Authority, then it was not for his client to do so but for the appellants, therefore, he cannot be made to suffer on account of the aforesaid. In any case, the respondentpetitioner having worked for 32 long years on the post of Clerk / Accountant, it would be highly unjust to deny him the fruits of the said post, whether it be in the form of service benefits or retiral benefits. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has taken an equitable view of the matter and substantial justice has been done, therefore, the judgment impugned should not be interfered in an intra-Court appeal.

¶21

8. We have gone through Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellant before the Writ Court which reads as under:-

¶22

"9. That the petitioner Mr. Tiwari was the sole employee working on the post of permanent clerk in the Cooperative Cane Union Ltd., Pipraich who was in-charge of

¶23

SPLA No. 209 of 2026

¶24

4

¶25

the establishment and Court case related matters of the Union also. Petitioner Mr. Tiwari had not disclosed the Order dated 30.11.2012 of the Lucknow Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad to his superior authorities and continued to hold the post of Permanent Clerk irregularly by misusing his official positions while hiding the Order dated 30.11.2012 of the Hon'ble Court till his superannuation."

¶26

9. We have also perused the response of the respondent-petitioner to the aforesaid Paragraph 9 in Paragraph 9 of his own rejoinder affidavit which reads as under:-

¶27

"9. That the contents of Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit are misleading hence denied and the petitioner could not know about the order dated 30.11.2012 nor the opposite parties inform the order dated 30.11.2012. The petitioner first time came to know this fact by the letter of the secretary of the society by letter dated 01.06.2023, the petitioner has not suppressed any fact."

¶28

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to demonstrate from the record before us that the respondent-petitioner was aware of the dismissal of his writ petition for want of prosecution in 2012 but suppressed the aforesaid fact. In fact, we categorically asked the counsel for the appellants as to whether the appellants were represented through a Counsel before the Writ Court at the time of dismissal of the writ petition, he fairly submitted that they were represented. On being further asked as to whether the Advocate wrote any letter to the Appellant No. 4 or any other appellant informing them about the dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution, learned counsel submitted that there is no such material available with the appellants, meaning thereby, the appellants who were represented before the Writ Court were also not aware about the dismissal of the writ petition. In these circumstances, the possibility of the respondent-petitioner also not being aware of the same cannot be ruled out, especially in the absence of any material to the contrary, which may indict him as regards his conduct in the matter. The inference being drawn in Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit is not substantiated from facts and material on record, especially in view of the explanation offered by the respondent-petitioner that he came to know about the said dismissal of the writ petition only on 01.06.2023, and thereafter, moved an application for its restoration in the same year, which was allowed on 21.05.2025 and thereafter, the writ petition has been decided. The contention of the appellants' counsel that the respondent-petitioner being the sole Clerk in the office, suppressed the factum of dismissal of the writ petition in default deliberately, willfully and with mala fide intent, is not established.

¶29

SPLA No. 209 of 2026

¶30

5

¶31

11. As regards, the first contention of the appellants' counsel that the second compassionate appointment could not have been done, we do find some merit in it, in the sense, that the respondent-petitioner had already been given compassionate appointment, therefore, his second application should not have been considered, and in any case if it was to be considered, it should have been considered by the competent authority which was the Regional Cane Services Authority and not by the Deputy Cane Commissioner, who was its Chairman, but, we cannot ignore the fact that on account of the interim order passed in the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner continued to function as Clerk / Accountant and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part in getting the second compassionate appointment nor is it the case of the appellants before us. The respondent-petitioner having discharged the duties of Clerk / Accountant for as many as 32 years and having received the service benefits pertaining thereto, now to deny him the retiral benefits by holding the appointment to be illegal, would be unreasonable at this belated stage. Further, at the relevant time when the compassionate appointment was made, the law on the subject was fluid and it is only subsequently that the law has been clarified in the case of Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine All 252; that merely because the candidate seeking compassionate appointment possesses a higher qualification, he cannot be appointed on a higher post than the post occupied by the deceased employee.

¶32

12. Purely in the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Writ Court has passed an equitable order, therefore, subject to the discussion made hereinabove on the legal issues involved, it does not require any interference in an intra-Court appeal. We make it clear further that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter pertaining to compassionate appointment.

¶33

13. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. "

¶34

The issues in the said appeal and the writ petition pertained to validity of compassionate appointment whereas in Writ-A No.8574 of 2023 retiral dues had been claimed by the respondent as they were not being paid.

¶35

In view of the facts and reasons given in our judgment dated 06.05.2026 passed in Special Appeal No.205 of 2026 what logically flows from the aforesaid judgment is that the respondent-petitioner is entitled to payment of retiral dues as per rules. We, therefore, do not find any reason

¶36

SPLA No. 209 of 2026

¶37

6

¶38

to interfere with the impugned judgment 12.09.2025 passed in Writ-A No.8574 of 2023.

¶39

Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed .

¶40

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶41

May 7, 2026/ Shanu/-

¶42

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Secy. State Cane Service Authority Lko. and 4 Others v. Arvind Nath Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secy. State Cane Service Authority Lko. and 4 Others v. Arvind Nath Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohit Deo Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Abhinav Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Omar International Pvt. Ltd. Thru Director Ateeq Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2OTHERS vs Ram Dularee Yadav and 5 Others

Raj Kapoor Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Sinchai Vibhag and 2 Others vs Ram Krishna and 9 Others