The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, ruled that an employee’s regularization claim cannot be rejected merely due to retirement, provided it was filed before superannuation. Justice Shree Prakash Singh set aside the Unnao District Magistrate’s 2024 order, safeguarding benefits.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has ruled that an employee’s claim for regularization cannot be denied solely because they have reached the age of superannuation, as long as the claim was submitted before their retirement.
In a notable decision, Justice Shree Prakash Singh annulled the December 17, 2024 order issued by the District Magistrate of Unnao, which had dismissed the regularization request of a Seasonal Collection Amin. The Court noted that such a dismissal impacts the employee’s post-retirement benefits and cannot be legally upheld.
Case Background:
The petitioner, Bhanu Shanker Dwivedi, challenged the District Magistrate’s order at the High Court. Dwivedi had been appointed as a Seasonal Collection Amin on February 2, 1989, and continued to serve until his retirement on September 30, 2024.
After retirement, his regularization request was considered but subsequently rejected on December 17, 2024, on the basis that he was no longer eligible due to his retirement date. Dissatisfied with this decision, Dwivedi filed Writ-A No. 166 of 2025.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the petitioner, Piyush Pathak and Virendra Singh Yadav, argued that Dwivedi had devoted several decades to the department. They pointed out that similarly situated employees had received regularization benefits.
They referenced the case of Nand Kishore, a senior employee who passed away while in service, noting that the High Court had treated his services as regularized and allowed his son to be considered for a compassionate appointment based on a ruling from May 23, 2024, in Writ-A No. 6865 of 2013.
The petitioner’s counsel asserted that the retirement of an employee does not nullify their claim for regularization, provided relevant rules and regulations allow it. They also highlighted that Dwivedi’s name appeared at serial number 90 on the seniority list, arguing that the dismissal was based solely on his retirement and not on the unavailability of positions.
The State’s Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) opposed the petition, stating that no employee junior to Dwivedi had been regularized. The State maintained that the District Magistrate had issued a “detailed order” after reviewing the claim, indicating there was no error or ambiguity in the ruling.
Court Observations and Analysis
Justice Shree Prakash Singh reviewed the case documents and confirmed that Dwivedi’s name was indeed listed at serial number 90 in the seniority rankings. The Court determined that the District Magistrate had rejected the claim solely on the basis of the petitioner’s retirement.
The Court found the impugned order was made “without considering the provisions of law and settled propositions of law.”
Justice Singh stated,
“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 criticized the District Magistrate’s order as “erroneous” and issued “without application of mind.”
The High Court granted the writ petition and quashed the December 17, 2024 order. The case was remanded back to the District Magistrate of Unnao, with instructions to “consider and decide the claim of the petitioner afresh” within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the ruling.
CASE TITLE: Bhanu Shanker Dwivedi Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko WRIT A No. 166 of 2025
READ ATTACHMENT: