Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar controversy is involved in the present case, which has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 2817 of 2025, decided vide judgment and order dated 12.03.2025. It is further submitted that against the said judgment, the State preferred Special Appeal (Defective) No. 350 of 2025, which was decided on 02.09.2025, whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified with a direction to the opposite parties to pay the retiral dues and pension from the date of confirmation.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 02.09.2025 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 350 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Pyarelal). The operative part of the judgment is extracted below:-

¶13

"8. The requirement of pensionary benefits as per the relevant rule is that the employee should have been confirmed, which the respondent was, but this fact has been lost sight of. Challenging the said order, the respondent filed Writ-A No.2817 of 2025 seeking the following reliefs:-

¶14

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated

¶15

20.02.2025 passed by Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶16

WRIA No. 4365 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the opposite parties to count the services of adhoc services of the petitioner w.e.f 19.08.1989 to 19.08.1991 for the purposes of pensionary benefits.

¶19

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the opposite parties to make payment of Gratuity, Leave Encashment as well as arrears of pension along with interest, with all consequential benefits."

¶20

9. Learned Single Judge apart from quashing the order dated 20.02.2025 has also granted relief no.2. As regards, the validity of order dated 20.02.2025, for the reasons given hereinabove, we sustain the judgment of writ court in so far as quashing the order dated 20.02.2025 is concerned. However, we find it difficult to sustain the said judgment so far as relief no.2 i.e. for counting the respondent's adhoc services rendered from 19.08.1989 to 19.08.1991 for the purpose of pensionary benefits is concerned, in view of the U.P. Qualifying Service For Pension and Validation Act, 2021, the vires of which has been challenged and is pending before this Court.

¶21

10. On being confronted, Sri M.B.Singh, learned counsel for respondent submitted that he does not press relief no.2 of the writ petition at this appellate stage. So far as relief no.3 is concerned, in view of the findings already recorded, the gratuity, leave encashment as well as arrears of pension as far as admissible and payable to the respondent, would be paid with interest as permissible in law.

¶22

11. In view of the above discussions, we modify the judgment of the writ court to the extent it provides for addition of the ad-hoc services of the respondent while calculating the qualifying services for pensionary benefits/post retiral benefits, meaning thereby, the said services shall not be counted. The post retiral dues shall now be paid accordingly as may be permissible in law. The post retiral dues shall be paid within three months, if there is no other legal impediment. The services rendered w.e.f. 19.08.1991 shall be considered for the aforesaid pensionary benefits and not those rendered prior to.

¶23

12. The appeal is allowed in part."

¶24

In the present case also, the petitioner was initially appointed as Consolidation Lekhpal on 01.11.1985 and was confirmed on the said post on 01.03.1991. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Consolidator vide order dated 28.11.2006 and was confirmed on the said post vide order dated

¶25

WRIA No. 4365 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

24.06.2011. While working as Consolidator, he was further promoted to the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.12.2016, and from the said post he retired on 30.06.2025.

¶28

The only requirement for grant of pensionary benefits, as per the relevant rules, is that the employee should have been confirmed, which condition the petitioner satisfies, having been confirmed not once but twice; first on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal and thereafter on the promotional post.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 02.09.2025 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 350 of 2025.

¶30

The services of the petitioner, the date from which he stood confirmed on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal vide order dated 01.03.1991 till the date of his retirement shall be considered for the purposes of pensionary benefits. The petitioner shall be entitled to gratuity and arrears of pension, which shall be paid to him along with interest as permissible under law.

¶31

This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶32

It is made clear that the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.1991 shall be counted for the aforesaid purpose, and the services rendered prior thereto shall not be taken into account.

¶33

May 12, 2026 R.C.

¶34

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Pratibha Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Bhagwan Deen Verma and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Singh and 17 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and Another

Ravi Kumar Gupta (Constable, PNO-192464648) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Shalini Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Animal Husbandry U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Himanshu Kumar More vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Lko. and 3 Others