The Allahabad High Court has held that the consequences of administrative delay or negligence on the part of the State cannot be imposed upon an employee, particularly when the employee’s right had already crystallized under the applicable service rules. While deciding a writ petition concerning entitlement to pension and gratuity under the Old Pension Scheme, the Court directed the Nagar Vikas Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh to release pension and gratuity to a retired Assistant Engineer on the basis of his qualifying service.
The order was passed by Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir, who allowed the petition filed by Manoj Kumar Mishra, a retired Assistant Engineer (Civil), belonged to the U.P. Palika Centralised Service.
According to the case records, the petitioner was appointed on 07.03.1995 under Rule 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Palika
(Centralised) Services Rules, 1966 on a valid basis, an appointment which the Court emphasized was not ad hoc in the loose sense of the term nor dehors the rules. Subsequently, the 2003 Amendment, introducing Rule 21-A, created a statutory right in favour of the petitioner for regularization.
The Court specifically noted the following observation from the judgment:
“It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that he was appointed on 07.03.1995 in accordance with Rule 31 of the Rules of 1966. This appointment, though called ad hoc, is indeed one made in accordance with Rules and is not ad hoc in the sense in which the term is understood. Since the petitioner has functioned continuously from 07.03.1995, after being appointed under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1966, followed by regularization in service on 11.10.2006, the entire period has to be reckoned as regular service, entitling him to pension under the pre-existing or old pension scheme.”
The Bench observed that despite the existence of a valid basis for regularization, the authorities failed to issue the regularization order in time. This delay, the Court said, lacked any justification, and the burden of this delay could not be shifted onto the employee.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s right to regularization had already accrued in April 2003, upon the enforcement of the 2003 Amendment. Any subsequent delay in issuing the formal order was solely attributable to the respondents. The judgment reiterates:
“It is also asserted that the entitlement of the petitioner to regularization would crystallize under the Amendment of 2003 to the Rules of 1966 in the month of April, 2003. The delay in issue of the regularization order is a lapse on the respondents’ part, for which the petitioner cannot be denied his right, that would otherwise accrue.”
In support of its reasoning, the Court relied on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, including State of U.P. and others. vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav Retired Junior Engineer Civil, Nagar Nigam, State of U.P. and others vs. Raj Bahadur Pastor, and State of U.P. and another vs. Badri Narayan Agnihotri and others, wherein it was repeatedly held that the government’s lethargic or careless approach cannot deprive an employee of his rightful benefits.
Finally, the Court issued directions to the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas, the Director, Local Bodies, and the Secretary, Agra Development Authority, directing them jointly to:
Sanction pension to the petitioner based on his qualifying service counted from 10.04.2003.
Release arrears of pension within two months, together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum .
Ensure payment of gratuity within the same two-month period.
Commence regular monthly pension payments forthwith.
Case: Manoj Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and another
