Allahabad High Court
Vimla Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:55490
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 11525 of 2024
Vimla Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Abhishek Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ramesh Chandra Pandey
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State as well as Shri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 & 5.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 11.09.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition passed by respondent No.5 whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension in the capacity of being the widow of one Ram Gopal Yadav who at the time of death was working as an Amin and died in harness on 29.07.2007 has been rejected.
Further prayer is for a mandamus to the respondents to grant family pension payable to the petitioner.
3. Bereft of unnecessary details admitted facts of the case even as per the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5 dated 04.09.2025 are that the husband of the petitioner was appointed in Nagar Palika Parishad as a Daily Wage Employee on the post of Collection Amin (Class IV Post). His services were terminated on 31.12.1991. Being aggrieved, husband of the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.237(SS) of 1992 before this Court praying for quashing of the termination order dated 31.12.1991.
4. Vide the order dated 10.01.1992 this Court passed an interim order and directed the respondents No.4 & 5 to allow the husband of the petitioner to continue in service. A copy of the said order is Annexure-4 to the petition.
5. During pendency of the writ petition itself, the services of the petitioner's husband were regularized. The writ petition was itself dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.07.2012. In the interregnum, husband of the petitioner died in harness on 29.07.2007.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner staked her claim for being given the family pension and other retiral dues, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 11.09.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, on the ground that although vide order dated 12.04.1994 services of the petitioner's husband had been regularized but as no confirmation order had been passed as such she would not be entitled for family pension.
7. The regularization of the husband of the petitioner vide order dated 12.04.1994 is specifically indicated in the supplementary counter affidavit as also indicated in the service book of the petitioner's husband, extract of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the petition, wherein it is indicated that Ram Gopal Yadav had been regularized in pursuance of the Government Order dated 09.01.1992 in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 with effect from 01.04.1994.
8. Considering the date of regularization on 12.04.1994 and death of the husband of the petitioner on 29.07.2007, it is apparent that petitioner's husband at the time of his death had rendered more than 13 years of service and thus considering the 10 years qualifying service which is required for the purpose of grant of pension/family pension it is apparent that the said condition of qualifying service also stood fulfilled.
9. However, the claim of the petitioner for family pension has been rejected solely on the ground that although the husband of the petitioner had been regularized but he had not been confirmed.
10. There is no dispute that the pension is payable to the employees of respondent No.5.
11. Specific query has been put to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 as to the requirement of confirmation of an employee who has been regularized.
12. In pursuance thereof, Shri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 & 5 has placed reliance on the averments contained in supplementary counter affidavit to argue that for the purpose of determination of pension the same would be governed by Article 361 of the Civil Service Regulations, which categorically provide that (a) The service must be under government; (b) The employment must be substantive and permanent; and (c) The service must be paid by the Government.
13. What would be the effect of a person being regularized in service and whether he would be entitled for pension has been considered by this court in the case of Adarsh Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors : 2023 : AHC : 202239 wherein this Court has held as under:-
"13. The concept of regularization of daily wage employees/ casual labourers/ temporary and ad-hoc employees is to give them substantive appointment by offering vacant position in a cadre or creating vacancies to increase cadre strength to accommodate such employees. The very idea behind regularization is to bring certainty in employment and to reward them for their continued working with the establishment as they have spent their heydays in service and are rendered overaged for any new employment. This is also important for an employer to give such an employee a financial security when it is State. State has to set an example of a model employer for other private entrepreneurs. I may quote here the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors v. Putti Lal, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 313 vide its para 11 and 12 that runs as under:
"11. In this connection reference may also be made to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), Section 2(ra) of which has defined "unfair labour practice" as under :
"2 (ra), "unfair labour practice" means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;"
Serial No. 10 of "unfair labour practice" contained in Fifth Schedule appended to the Act, being relevant, in this connection, is reproduced below:
"10. To employ workmen as "bad lies", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen."
By the said provision employment of persons as bad lies, casual or temporary for years has been declared to be "unfair labour practice". Almost similar definition of "unfair labour practice", contained in Maharashtra Act came up for consideration in Chief Conservator of Forest v. Jagannath Maniti Kondhare (MANU/SC/0750/1996) wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Industrial Court holding that employment of the employees on casual or temporary basis for several years (5 to 6 years is that case) amounts to unfair labour practice. The Supreme Court also rejected the Government's plea about its inability to regularise the service of Daily Wagers on account of paucity of funds holding as under :
"28. In so far as the financial strain on state exchequer is concerned, which submissions sought to be buttressed by Shri Dholakia by stating that in the Forests Department itself the casual employees are about 1.4 lacs and if all of them were to be regularised and paid at the rate applicable to permanent workmen, the financial involvement would be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 300 crores a very high figure indeed. We have not felt inclined to bear in mind this contention of Shri Dholakia as the same has been brought out almost from the hat. The argument relating to financial burden is one of despair or in terrorem. We have neither been impressed by the first nor frightened by the second, inasmuch as we do not intend that the view to be taken by us in these appeals should apply, proprio vigore, to all casual labourers of the Forest Department or any other Department of the Government.
29. We wish to say further that if Shri Bhandare's submission is taken to its logical end, the justification for paying even minimum wages could wither away, leaving any employer, not to speak of model employer like the State, to exploit unemployed persons. To be fair to Shri Bhandare it may, however, be stated that the learned counsel did not extend his submission this far, but we find it difficult to limit the submission of Shri Bhandare to payment of, any fair wages, as distinguished from minimum wages. We have said so because if a pay scale has been provided for permanent workmen that has been done by the State Government keeping in view its legal obligation and must be due which had been recommended by the State Pay Commission and accepted by the Government. We cannot deny this relief of permanency to the respondents-workmen only because in that case they would be required to be paid wages meant for permanent workers. This right flows automatically from the relief of regularisation to which no objection can reasonably be taken, as already pointed out, We would, however, observe that the relief made available to the respondents is not one which would be available ipso facto to all the casual employees either of the Forest Department or any other Department of the State. Claim of casual employees for permanency or for higher pay shall have to be decided on the merits of their own cases."
In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court held that Forest Department is an industry and casual/ daily wagers are workmen under the Act.
12. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court pending these cases the Government of U. P. has submitted more than one scheme for regularisation of the petitioners, but those Schemes hardly contain any hope for their regularisation. It has been stated therein that the petitioners can be considered for regularisation against available; vacancies after amending service rules. Available vacancies being few no substantial help can be expected from them. That apart, the Government while framing those Schemes has not applied its mind to the questions dealt with hereinabove. These are aspects which are to be considered by the Government before framing Scheme for absorption of the petitioners. In the present case the appropriate pleadings are also not there, so as to declare the employment of the petitioners as daily wager for considerably long period as "unfair labour practice". We, are, therefore, not expressing any final opinion on this question also. The questions dealt with hereinabove are to be considered and decided by the Government before framing the Scheme for regularisation/absorption of the petitioners and other similarly placed employees."
14. It is in the above background that the Supreme court on appeal required State of Uttar Pradesh to frame rules for regularization and it is for that reason that regularization Rules 2001 namely Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wagers (Appointment on Group 'D' Posts) Rules, 2001 were framed by the State Government and the Court expressed its view that in that case those who are working on daily wage basis or casual employees will be regularized and till their regularization was considered, they would be paid minimum of pay scales as admissible to regular group 'D' employees. Vide paras 24 and 25 Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Others v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337:
"3. On behalf of the employees an IA had been filed claiming that they should at least be allowed their regular wages during the pendency of the appeals, but by order dated 27-9-1999 that prayer was rejected and it was held that the persons working will be paid only the amount payable to a daily-wager. When these matters had been posted for hearing before the Court on 1-5-2001, after hearing the parties for a considerable length of time, the Court felt that the impugned direction of the High Court for providing a scheme for regularisation of all the daily-wage workers/muster-roll employees under the Forest Department who have rendered 10 years of service or more, should be regularised by making appropriate scheme. The Court directed that the scheme should be framed within three months from the date of the order. As the State of U.P. was bifurcated into two States and the State of Uttaranchal had come into existence, by a subsequent order the State of Uttaranchal was also impleaded as a party and it had been granted time to file its response. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Court dated 1-5-2001 the State of U.P. has framed a set of rules in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called "the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wagers (Appointment on Group 'D' Posts) Rules, 2001". It appears that a similar rule has been framed for regularisation of Group 'C' daily-wage employees. Both these statutory rules would govern the case of all daily-wagers appointed in any department including the Forest Department, which Department was before us pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Since a statutory rule has been framed indicating the manner in which the daily-wagers can be regularised, question of framing any further scheme by the State of Uttar Pradesh does not arise.
5. In several cases this Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily-wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counterpart in the Government. In our opinion that would be the correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counterparts in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily-wagers. The question of their regular absorption will obviously be dealt with in accordance with the statutory rules already referred to."
15. In the matters like the present one, I find that the petitioner was entitled to regularization on account of his previous service so rendered and therefore, it is legitimately expected from the Government that it will not deny claim for pensionary benefits to such employees...."
14. From perusal of the judgment of this court in the case of Adarsh Kumar (supra) it emerges that this court has considered the effect of regularisation of the services of casual employees, laborers and ad hoc employees and it has been held that concept of regularization is to give such person substantive appointment by offering vacant position in a cadre and the very idea behind the regularization is to bring certainty in employment and to reward such employees for their continued working in the establishment and it is also important for an employer to give such an employee a financial security when it is State.
15. This Court after also placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors vs Putti Lal : (2006) 9 SCC 337 has also held that after regularization the Government cannot deny the claim for pensionary benefit to such an employee.
16. In the instant case also, admittedly the husband of the petitioner was regularized on 12.04.1994 and died in harness on 29.04.2007 and thus having rendered more than 13 years of service would be entitled for being given the pension and other retrial dues and consequently the petitioner in the capacity of being the widow would be entitled for family pension and other retiral dues.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents has failed to indicate any rule as to the requirement of regular employee to be confirmed in service consequently the only inference which can be drawn is that no such requirement is provided under the rules and only the regularization order would itself suffice for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits provided qualifying service has been rendered by the said employee.
18. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 11.09.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside.
19. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner along with other retiral dues as fell due on account of the death of her husband on 29.04.2007. The respondents shall also pay arrears of family pension with effect from July, 2007. While making payment of arrears of family pension and retiral dues, the respondents shall also consider the admissible rate of interest on the delayed payment.
20. The respondents shall comply with the said order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Abdul Moin,J.) September 12, 2025 prateek