HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 340 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State appellants and Shri Shivang Dheeraj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The contention of the appellants' counsel is that vide interim order dated 07.05.2025 direction has been issued to the appellants herein to make payment of all the dues prayed vide prayer no.2 of the writ petition and payment of those dues shall remain subject to the final outcome of the petition and undertaking to this effect may be taken from the petitioner while making payment of the dues. If the payment of the aforesaid dues are not given to the petitioner by the next date of listing, any adverse order may be taken against the opposite parties. The relief no.2 in the writ petition reads as under :- "II. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing seeking a writ of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to pay the dues of leave encashment and gratuity to the petitioner after his Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Suman Pandey, Shivang Dheeraj Dwivedi State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Basic Education) Lko. And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) Shailendra Kumar Tandon .....Respondent(s) retirement from the post of Junior Assistant in the office of Principal, DIET, Amroha under Basic Education Department after calculating the services rendered by the petitioner in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan which has already been paid to the similarly situated persons excluding the pension along with the prescribed rate of interest." 3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that final relief has been granted at the interim stage without any counter affidavit having been filed. The submission is that the private respondent is an erstwhile employee/ typist of UPTRON India Limited, having been appointed as such in 1978. The UPTRON India Limited was closed in 1998 and vide decision dated 11.11.1998 the surplus employees of UPTRON India Limited were absorbed on contractual basis in various departments/ corporations. The respondent/ petitioner came to be so absorbed in the State Project (Directorate)/ Sarva Siksha Abhiyan on 24.02.2000. His services were absorbed on the post of Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer. Prior to it he was working on contractual basis in terms of decision dated 11.11.1998 of the State Government. He retired on 30.09.2017, that is after putting in only about 14 days as a regular absorbed employee, therefore, he was not entitled to pension or gratuity as he does not fulfill the minimum required service whether for payment of pension or gratuity. 4. The respondent counsel, on the other hand, relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 09.07.2024 in support of his contention that he will have to be treated as absorbed from the date of his deputation and it being so, he not only fulfills the qualifying service for pension but is also entitled to gratuity. SPLA No. 340 of 2025 2 5. We have perused the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 which also deals with death-cum-retirement gratuity and pension. We have also perused the provisions of the Civil Service Regulation, as applicable in this context. Certain Government Orders have been relied upon by the State which have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed today, which is taken on record. Although it is a moot point as to how far the Government Orders can be made applicable when there are specific Rules of 1961 on the subject, but as the learned Single Judge has not dwelt on these aspects and considering the fact that by interim order, without discussing the relevant issues as to the entitlement of the respondent to post retiral dues, such as pension and/ or gratuity, straightaway a direction has been given for payment of the dues mentioned in relief no.2 which veritably amounts to allowing the writ petition qua the said relief without any counter affidavit and without adjudication, which could not have been done at the interim stage, therefore, only for this reason we quash the impugned interim order dated 07.05.2025 to the extent it grants the said relief. 6. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 7. Counter affidavit has already been filed by the appellant/ State before the writ court. The respondent may file their rejoinder affidavit to the same. The writ petition bearing Writ A No. 4513 of 2025 shall now be listed before the writ court on December 09, 2025 amongst first ten cases. As retiral dues are involved, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the writ petition whether for grant of interim or final relief and pass orders as he may deem SPLA No. 340 of 2025 3 appropriate, as per law keeping in mind the aforesaid. November 4, 2025 Arnima SPLA No. 340 of 2025 4 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench