Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35041-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 199 of 2025 Appellant :- Wasim Ahmad Respondent :- State Of Up And 9 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Prakash Pandey,Mansoor Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,Adarsh Bhushan,C.S.C.,Devesh Vikram,Suyash Agarwal Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2025 1. Appeal has been filed with a delay of 151 days. 2. Cause shown is sufficient. 3. Application is allowed. 4. Delay is condoned. Order on Appeal Learned Single Judge has rejected the appellants claim for pension on the ground that their services got regularized in 2003 by when the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was already enforced in respect of separate corporations created after the U.P. State Electricity Board was dis-continued. The re-constitution was made as per the provisions of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. On behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that the provisions of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 ceased to exist and since the circular of the department was not under challenge, which made the CPF applicable on the date of regularization, as such no relief can be granted. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 23(7) of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 in order to submit that the previous services could not have been ignored and that the benefit of services rendered before the transfer was required to be taken note of. Learned Single Judge has noticed the import of the Reforms Act, 1999 and relying upon the division bench judgment of this Court in Rajiv Kumar Johari Vs State of U.P. and others 2007 (2) AWC 1726 categorically held that the provisions of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 would not be applicable upon the case of the appellants. We may also note that the regularization orders were passed in favour of the appellants in 2003. The regularization order in the case of first petitioner before the learned Single Judge i.e. Moti Chand, itself records that the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 as well as other pension rules will not be applicable and the employees would be entitled only to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It is also admitted that after the retirement of these persons they receive benefit under the C.P.F. Rules. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellants cannot now be permitted to contend that they are to be treated akin to State Government employees and that services prior to his regularization is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pension. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced we find that the circular issued by the respondent clearly make the provisions of 1961 Retirement Rules inapplicable and enforce the provisions of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme vide Circular of 2002 which has attained finality. No challenge was otherwise made to the circular in that regard. The appellants have also acquiesced to such provision and have availed its benefit. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants after holding that the circular having been enforced in the corporation its effect cannot be evaded nor a better scheme can be claimed once the appellants have acquiesced to it. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 A Gautam Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad