HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 453 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the delay is condoned and the appeal is heard finally and even otherwise we are satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Order in Special Appeal 5. We asked the learned counsel for the State as to why leave encashment is not payable to the respondent if Government Order dated 17.03.1994, specially paragraph 2(9), is applicable to the conditions of service of employees of District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), as claimed by the respondent, as admittedly no criminal or departmental proceedings are pending and specially in view of the judgment dated 21.05.2025 passed by co-ordinate bench in Special Appeal (Defective) No.210 of 2025. 6. On being confronted with the aforesaid query, learned counsel for the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : M.K. Singh Bhardwaj State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gramya Vikas Anubhag -2 Lko. And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) Rajaram .....Respondent(s) State could not deny the fact that provision of paragraph 2(9) of the Government Order dated 17.03.1994 has been considered by a co- ordinate Bench in its judgment dated 21.05.2025 referred herein-above, relevant paragraphs of which are quoted herein-below :- "12. Undisputed facts are that the respondent, while working with DRDA, superannuated and was granted all the retiral benefits other than the leave encashment. Learned Single Judge, with reference to Clause 2(9) of the GO, granted the relief and observed that the judgment in the case of Pitambar (supra), relied on by the State, was per incuriam. In the case of Pitambar (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with applicability of Rule 56 of U.P. Fundamental Rules pertaining to the age of superannuation wherein the Division Bench came to the conclusion that those working with DRDA, were not holding civil post and were consequently, not entitled for benefit of Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. 13. It appears that subsequent to the judgment in the case of Pitambar (supra), in State of U.P. Vs. Ajeet Kumar Shahi : Special Appeal 714 of 2015, following the judgment in the case of Pitambar (supra), another Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Rules of 1974 were inapplicable to the employees of DRDA. Yet another Division Bench, being in conflict with the view in the case of Ajeet Kumar Shahi (supra), referred the matter to the larger Bench, wherein in the case of Kalyani Mehrotra (supra), the larger Bench with reference to the GO, come to the following conclusion: "63. Consequently, the questions referred to this Bench are answered as follow:- Question No. 1 : In view of the provisions of Government Order dated 17.03.1994, particularly clause 2(9), the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 would be applicable upon employees of the District Rural Development Agency: SPLAD No. 453 of 2025 2 Question No. 2 : The judgment of Division Bench in Ajeet Kumar Shahi (supra) having been passed in ignorance of Government Order dated 17.03.1994 is held not to be a good law and is, therefore, overruled." 14. The larger Bench came to the conclusion that the judgment in the case of Ajeet Kumar Shahi (supra), having been passed in ignorance of GO, was not a good law. Once the larger Bench has come to the conclusion that in view of Clause 2(9) of the GO, unless something contrary was found in the said GO, all provisions pertaining to government servants would be applicable and made the Rules of 1974 applicable to the employees of the DRDA, as the GO does not deal with the leave encashment, the respondent would be entitled to the grant of leave encashment, which even otherwise has been paid to similarly placed candidates." 7. As learned counsel for the State has not been able to satisfy us as to why the aforesaid provision and the judgment of co-ordinate Bench should not be followed in this case and as we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench and as we are independently also satisfied about the applicability of the Rules applicable to the State Government employees and of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) in the context of conditions of service of the latter, including post retiral dues, therefore, we see no merit in the appeal. It is not in dispute that the State Government employees are paid leave encashment as part of the post retiral dues. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. November 24, 2025 Arnima SPLAD No. 453 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench