Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5191 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10372 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shiv Ram Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt.Andors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Seema Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor with effect from 01.04.1978. After rendering services on the said post, the petitioner was duly entitled to be promoted to the next higher post of Cooperative Inspector Group-2 (Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative)). In this regard, it has been stated that as the regular promotions were not being carried out despite the fact that there was vacancies and the petitioner was eligible, the Regional Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies was empowered to make such appointments for a period of 90 days. In the exercise of aforesaid powers the Regional Deputy Registrar continued to pass orders and promoted the petitioner to the post of Cooperative Inspector from time to time from 01.12.1990 onwards. The petitioner accordingly, continued to work on the post of Cooperative Inspector as and when the orders were passed on 13.09.1992, 13.10.1992, 18.05.1993, 09.09.1993, 18.11.1993 and 22.12.1993. Subsequently, it seems that the case for regular promotion of the petitioner was also considered to the post of Cooperative Inspector but at that time, an adverse entry had been passed recorded in the service book of the petitioner due to which the petitioner could not be promoted. 3. It has been stated that the said adverse entry got to be expunged on 14.01.1998, after which the petitioner was duly considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector and by means of order dated 30.03.2003 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector. The petitioner continued on the post till 31.10.2012 when he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. The petitioner contends that the benefit of the post of Cooperative Inspector should be granted to the petitioner from the date of promotion of his juniors i.e. 22.05.1995 rather than 30.03.2003. In this regard, several representations were made to the respondents who after due consideration proceeded to pass the order dated 21.01.2013 treating the petitioner to have been appointed on the post of Revenue Inspector for the vacancies occurring in the recruitment year 1996-97. Once the said benefit was given to the petitioner, it is contended that the petitioner's services were supposed to be reckoned on the post of Revenue Inspector from 1996-97 and accordingly, he would be entitled to receive pension. 5. It is stated that after a lapse of more than two years, the respondents had proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 13.02.2015 whereby the benefit granted to the petitioner by means of order dated 21.01.2013 was withdrawn. The reasons given was that the petitioner was regularly promoted to the post of Cooperative Inspector while the benefit of regularization could have been given only to those persons, who are working on ad-hoc basis on the post of Cooperative Inspector and accordingly, it was decided that the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of regularization on the said post and hence the previous order dated 21.01.2013 was withdrawn. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised various arguments assailing the validity of the order dated 13.02.2015. Firstly, it has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner considering the fact that a vested right had accrued in favour of the petitioner by passing the order dated 21.01.2013, which continued to hold field for more than two years before the same was withdrawn by means of order dated 21.01.2013. 7. He submits that in case there was any error in the order dated 21.01.2013 it ought to have been rectified at the earliest rather than permit it from operating for a period of two years. Considering the fact that the vested right had accrued the petitioner by passing of the order dated 21.01.2013 it was necessary that the respondents should have given opportunity of hearing or least to the show cause notice before passing of the order dated 13.02.2015, therefore, submits that the said order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 8. He further submits that had the respondents given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, he would have demonstrated that as per provisions of Rule 13 (8) of the U.P. Retirement of Government Servants Rules, 1961 provides that in case an officiating period is sandwiched between two regular periods and the previous service is on non-pensionable post then such period is liable to be included for considering the case of a person for grant of pension. 9. Lastly, it is stated that once the adverse entry was expunged on 14.01.1998 then the petitioner was duly entitled to be promoted from the date his juniors were promoted and hence, his regular service on the post of Cooperative Inspector should have been counted from 22.05.1995. 10. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 11. This Court has also perused the writ petition. After considering the rival contentions, it is clear that the after due consideration the services of the petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector he was regularized from the selection year 1996-97. In effect the petitioner would have rendered about 16- 17 years of service prior to his superannuation and there fore, would have qualified for receiving pension. By means of the impugned order dated 13.02.2015 the benefit granted to the petitioner by means of order dated 21.01.2013 has been withdrawn. 12. Firstly this Court does not find any cogent reason for withdrawal of the said benefit nor has any cogent reason been stated in the impugned order and secondly it is abundantly clearly that neither any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner nor was he given a show cause notice prior to passing of the same. Undoubtedly such an order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice withdrawing the accrued rights vested in the petitioner would be illegal and arbitrary in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. The petitioner has canvassed various other grounds in support of his submissions but once this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice then the matter deserves to be remitted to the appropriate authority to consider the case of the petitioner again where the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the grounds in this petition in support of his contentions with regard to the sustaining of the order dated 21.01.2013 and the competent authority would be under a mandate to consider the pleas raised by the petitioner and pass a speaking and reasoned order in this regard. 14. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 is set aside with regard to the petitioner. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the fact that much time has lapsed, and the petitioner has since superannuated, the respondents are directed to expedite the proceedings and pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench