The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that an employee’s claim for regularization cannot be rejected solely on the ground that they have attained the age of superannuation, provided the claim was raised prior to their retirement.
In a significant ruling, Justice Shree Prakash Singh quashed the order dated December 17, 2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Unnao, which had rejected the regularization claim of a Seasonal Collection Amin. The Court observed that such rejection affects the employee’s post-terminal benefits and is legally unsustainable.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Bhanu Shanker Dwivedi, approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate, Unnao. Dwivedi was initially appointed to the post of Seasonal Collection Amin on February 2, 1989. He continued in service until his superannuation on September 30, 2024.
Following his retirement, the District Magistrate considered his claim for regularization but rejected it via an order dated December 17, 2024. The rejection was based on the premise that since the petitioner had already retired on September 30, 2024, he was no longer entitled to regularization. Aggrieved by this decision, Dwivedi filed Writ-A No. 166 of 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner, Piyush Pathak and Virendra Singh Yadav, argued that the petitioner had served the department for decades. They submitted that identically situated employees in the same department had been granted the benefit of regularization.
The counsel drew the Court’s attention to the case of one Nand Kishore, a senior employee in the department who died in harness. It was submitted that following a judgment of the High Court dated May 23, 2024, in Writ-A No. 6865 of 2013, the services of the late Nand Kishore were treated as regularized, and his son was considered for compassionate appointment.
The petitioner contended that the “retirement of an employee does not make nullity of his claim regarding regularization, if rules, regulations and laws permit so.” It was further argued that the petitioner’s name appeared at serial no. 90 in the seniority list, and the rejection was not due to the unavailability of posts, but solely because of his retirement.
Opposing the plea, the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) appearing for the State submitted that no employee junior to the petitioner had been regularized. The State argued that the District Magistrate had passed a “detailed order” after considering the claim, and therefore, there was no ambiguity or error in the impugned order.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Shree Prakash Singh examined the record and noted that the petitioner’s name indeed appeared at serial no. 90 of the seniority list. The Court found that the appointing authority, the District Magistrate, had rejected the claim on the “sole premises” of the petitioner’s retirement.
The Court held that the impugned order was passed “without considering the provisions of law and settled proposition of law.”
Justice Singh observed:
“The claim of the petitioner for regularization, which was raised prior to retirement, cannot be rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has been retired as the same would have vitally effect over the post terminal benefits of the petitioner as well as the other benefits.”
The Bench termed the District Magistrate’s order as “erroneous” and passed “without application of mind.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated December 17, 2024.
The matter was relegated back to the District Magistrate, Unnao, with a direction to “consider and decide the claim of the petitioner afresh” within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Bhanu Shanker Dwivedi Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko And 3 Others
- Case Number: WRIT – A No. 166 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Shree Prakash Singh
- Counsel for Petitioner: Piyush Pathak, Virendra Singh Yadav
- Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.
