HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 2001523 of 2009 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Waseeq Uddin Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the Lucknow University. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the Chancellor nor on behalf of the opposite party no. 5. 3. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the 'the Act, 1973') by which the benefit of past services rendered by the petitioner on the post of Pool Officer for the period 01.09.1986 to 31.08.1989 at Allahabad University have been counted and benefit of it has been given to his services in the Lucknow University as Assistant Professor, have been set- aside on the ground that there is no provision in the Statute or the Ordinance for counting the said services for seniority etc. and that the University should consider granting such benefits only in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1973, Statues and Ordinances made thereunder and not on the basis of any direction de-hors the same. 4. The University's stand, of course, before the Chancellor was that it had Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : I.P. Singh, Waseeq Uddin Ahmed Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.Sc.., Abha Bajpai, Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, Anupam Mehrotra, Brijesh Kumar Shukla, H.S.Jain, Jai Krishna Sinha, Savitra Vardhan Singh, U.N. Misra Dr. Virendra Singh Yadav S/O Murali Singh Yadav .....Petitioner(s) Chancellor Lucknow University And Ors. .....Respondent(s) been done under a Government Order. In Para 18 and 19 the petitioner has specifically averred the grant of similar benefits to others in different Departments, but, in response to it, the University has not denied the said fact. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Chancellor reiterating the reasons given in the impugned order i.e. such benefits can only be considered as per law and not otherwise, but, the fact that such benefits was granted to others has not been denied. No doubt, such benefits could be considered and granted by the University strictly in accordance with the Act, 1973, Statues and Ordinances made thereunder, but, in this case there was a Government Order under which the University extended the said benefit and not only the petitioner but others whose name finds mention in Para 18 of the writ petition were also extended the said benefit. The petitioner as also the opposite party no. 5 who had submitted the reference, both have retired, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party no. 5 if the order impugned is quashed purely on facts of this case, as, others were granted similar benefits but the reference was filed only in respect of the petitioner. We must point out that the impugned order was stayed by this Court on 26.10.2009. The petitioner retired thereafter in 2022 and has received post retiral benefits including the past services as Pool Officer at Allahabad University as informed by the petitioner's counsel. Purely on facts and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove the impugned order is hereby quashed. 5. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, however, it shall not be treated as a precedent by any other Teachers to claim similar benefits. September 24, 2025 R.K.P. WRIA No. 2001523 of 2009 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench