The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow, has granted significant pension relief to a large group of U.P. state employees, ruling decisively that service rendered on a daily wage or work-charge basis prior to regularization must be counted as “qualifying service” for pension.
Justice Manish Mathur, in a judgment delivered November 4, 2025, disposing of 78 writ petitions led by Jai Ram Sharma v. State Of U.P., affirmed that the Supreme Court’s precedent in Prem Singh v. State of U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 remains the binding law. The Court found that subsequent state laws, namely the U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (Act of 2021), and the U.P. Entitlement to Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2025 (Ordinance of 2025), failed to validly overrule the Supreme Court’s decision.
As a result, the High Court quashed the various state orders that had denied these pensionary benefits to the petitioners.
Background of the Case
The judgment addressed a cluster of petitions challenging orders that denied pension benefits to numerous former state employees. The denial was based on two primary grounds: first, that their initial service as daily wage or work-charge employees did not constitute “qualifying service,” and second, that their services were regularized after the 1st April 2005 cut-off date, purportedly making them subject to the New Pension Scheme.
The judgment noted that the petitioners were “initially engaged either on daily wage or on work-charge basis from the year 1974 onwards.” It was stated that “a majority of them were regularized in service after having spent more than 2-3 decades on such basis.” The Court also took note that “In a few cases, petitioners were not regularized and attained the age of superannuation.”
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Submissions led by Advocate Sameer Kalia primarily placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Singh (supra). The counsel argued that this judgment had “read down provisions of Rule 3(8) of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961” and had “struck down provisions contained in Regulation 370 of Civil Service Regulations as also instructions contained in paragraph 669 of Financial Handbook, Volume VI.”
It was contended that the Prem Singh judgment “clearly brought within purview of pensionary benefits, services rendered by such temporary employees who were engaged on work-charge or daily wage basis,” including cases where they superannuated without regularization.
The petitioners further submitted that the subsequent Act of 2021 and Ordinance of 2025 were enacted by the State “merely to over-reach the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh” and, failing to meet the legal requirements for a validation act, were “liable to be ignored.”
Respondents’ (State’s) Submissions: The learned Chief Standing Counsel, representing the State of U.P., refuted the petitioners’ claims. The State argued that the petitioners were “disentitled for claiming pension” as their services “were neither substantive nor came within scope of qualifying service.”
The State’s defence was heavily reliant on the new legislation. It was submitted that the Act of 2021 “would now hold the field,” particularly Section 2, which defines ‘qualifying service’ as “service’ rendered by an officer appointed on temporary or permanent post in accordance with provisions of Service Rules.” The State argued that since the petitioners’ initial engagement was not in accordance with service rules, they were disentitled.
Similarly, the State cited Section 2(d) of the Ordinance of 2025, which defines a ‘substantive appointee,’ arguing the petitioners did not fall under this definition. The State also cited the 28.03.2005 notification introducing the New Contributory Pension Scheme for employees entering service on or after 1st April 2005.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court framed three crucial questions for consideration: (a) Whether the petitioners’ rights are governed by Prem Singh (supra) or by the new Act of 2021 and Ordinance of 2025? (b) Whether the petitioners’ cases would be covered by the New Pension Scheme due to the 1st April 2005 cut-off date? (c) Whether employees who superannuated without regularization would also be entitled to pension under Prem Singh?
On Question (a): The Validity of State Legislation Justice Mathur began the analysis by stating that prior to the new laws, the dispute “was given a quietus by Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra).” The judgment reiterated the Supreme Court’s finding that “the very concept of work-charged employment has been misused by offering employment on exploitative terms for work which is regular and perennial in nature.”
The Court found that the Act of 2021 and Ordinance of 2025 failed to cure the defects pointed out by the Supreme Court. The judgment held that the petitioners’ initial engagement, even if without following due procedure, would be “merely an irregularity and not illegality,” citing the principles in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The Court cited a coordinate bench judgment in Dr. Shyam Kumar v. State of U.P. (2023), which had examined the Act of 2021 and found it “did not remove vices pointed out by Supreme Court… nor it has removed invalidity.”
Furthermore, the Court relied on a recent Supreme Court decision in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), which held that “long and uninterrupted service… cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual.” The Jaggo judgment also clarified that Uma Devi (supra) “does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service.”
In light of these precedents, the High Court found that the Ordinance of 2025 also “seeks to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court… without indicating any features for exercising legislative power to overrule.” The Court held this to be in violation of the principles for legislative validation established in Indian Aluminum Co. v. State of Kerala (1996) 7 SCC 637.
The Court dismissed the State’s reliance on Ashok Tewari vs. State of U.P. as “per incuriam,” noting it “failed to consider various Division Bench Judgments” on the issue and had relied on a Single Judge judgment in Brahmanand Singh which “was already set aside in appeal.”
The Court concluded: “In view of discussions made here-in-above and the law noticed, it is evident that petitioners would have a right for benefits of pension and pensionary benefits irrespective of the Ordinance of 2020 as replaced by the Act of 2021 and the Ordinance of 2025.”
On Question (b): The 1st April 2005 Cut-off The Court ruled that since the petitioners’ initial temporary or work-charge service is eligible to be counted as qualifying service, “the aspect of their regularization subsequent to 1st April, 2005 is rendered irrelevant.” The judgment noted this plea was “impliedly rejected” in Prem Singh itself. The Court held that “petitioners irrespective of their regularization in service post 01.04.2005 would be eligible for pension and such benefits.”
On Question (c): Employees Not Regularized Answering the final question, the Court held that based on Prem Singh (supra) and Jaggo (supra), “such employees who were initially engaged in service as temporary or on work-charge basis and superannuated after decades of such service without regularization, would also be entitled for pension and pensionary benefits.”
Final Decision
In allowing the petitions, Justice Mathur observed, “it is also relevant that aspect of a Welfare State is not an abstract concept incorporated in the Constitution of India only for the sake of posterity… it is the interest of people of a country which would supersede those of a State…”
The Court ordered: “Various orders impugned in the writ petitions denying benefit of pensionary benefits are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.”
One petition, Writ-A No. 9912 of 2023, was de-linked from the bunch to be listed separately as it involved a different issue.
Heard Mr. Sameer Kalia, Mr. Srideep Chatterjee, Mr. I.M. Pandey -1st , Mr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Mohd. Ateeq Khan, Mr. Mahendra Nath Rai, Mr. S.P. Singh Somvanshi, Mr. M.P. Raju, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Shukla & Mr. Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Shailender Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Shukla & Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for opposite parties.
