Allahabad High Court
U.P.S.R.T.C. THRU. M.D. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
After retirement, a mandamus directing promotion cannot be issued and the recovery orders under Section 6‑H are invalid as they were based on a misinterpretation of the earlier award; the petitioner was not eligible for further promotion without the requisite service tenure.
Summary
The petitioner, a former UPSRTC employee, was initially appointed Chowkidar in 1977, promoted to Office Assistant (Second) in 1978, then reverted to Chowkidar. Industrial disputes in 1984 and subsequent awards (1985, 2004) directed his reinstatement as Office Assistant and later promotion to Head Clerk in 2012. The petitioner sought promotion to Office Superintendent and challenged recovery orders under Section 6‑H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, alleging wrongful deductions. The High Court held that promotion considerations apply only while the employee is in service; after retirement a mandamus for promotion cannot be granted, and the petitioner did not satisfy the three‑year service requirement for the higher post. Consequently, the recovery orders were quashed as they were based on a misreading of the earlier judgment, and all three writ petitions were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued directing promotion of an employee who has retired?
- Was the petitioner eligible for promotion to Office Superintendent under the service rules?
- Is the order of recovery of amounts under Section 6‑H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act valid after the employee’s retirement?
- Are the arrears awarded under the 2004 award enforceable?
- Can the corporation recover amounts already paid to the petitioner?
Legislation cited
- U.P. Industrial Disputes Act — s. 6-H
Subjects
- promotion
- retirement
- mandamus
- industrial dispute
- service seniority
- U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
- wage recovery
- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 45732 of 2014
U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. M.D. and Anr.
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mangla Prasad Rai(senior Adv.),
Nishant Mehrotra, Sheo Ram Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav,
R.s.chauhan, Sheo Kinkar Singh,
Suryaprakash Sharma
Reserved on 15.9.2026
Delivered on 30.9.2026.
Along with:
1. Writ – A No. 7162 of 2014
2. Writ – A No. 13917 of 2014
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Dr.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for respondents in Writ Petition
No. 45732 of 2014, Sri Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for
petitioners and Sri Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for respondents in
Writ Petition Nos.7162 of 2014 and 13917 of 2014.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.7162 of 2014 and 13917 of 2014
and respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.45732 of 2014 was appointed as
a Chowkidar on 18.6.1977 in Jhansi region of U.P.State Road Transport
Corporation. He was selected as Office Assistant (Second)
on.17.11.1978 after passing a departmental examination. However
2
WRIC No. - 45732 of 2014
within a month on 13.12.1978, he was reverted to the post of Chowkidar
since his earlier engagement was only part time.
3. On the instance of petitioner, an industrial dispute was referred on
8.8.1984 that whether reversion of said respondent on the post of
Chowkidar was legal or not. Subsequently, also the petitioner
approached State Government for reference of an industrial dispute and
accordingly an another industrial dispute dated 8.8.1984 was referred
that petitioner an Office Assistant (Second) w.e.f. 18.3.1983 was in the
seniority list for promotion to Head Clerk since 14.8.1985, but still he
was not promoted therefore, whether such act was illegal or not. The
Labour Court passed an award dated 18.1.1985 arising out of first
industrial dispute that reversion was illegal and it was directed that
respondent no.4 shall be considered as Office Assistant (Second) from
the date of reversion i.e. 13.12.1978.
4. A challenge to award dated 18.1.1985 at behest of the Corporation
was rejected, since a Writ Petition No.18441 of 1985 was dismissed vide
an order dated 21.8.1991.
5. In pursuance of order dated 21.8.1991,the petitioner continued to
work as Office Assistant (Second) .
6. The second industrial dispute was finally decided by an award dated
5.10.2004 and it was directed that respondent no.4 shall be granted all
consequential benefits and higher post, in terms of seniority, and order
dated 21.08.1991 passed by this Court. It was further directed that on an
application petitioner’s claim on next promotion on the post of
Office Superintendent be expedite. Operative part of the said award is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“तद्नुसार विचाराधीन सन्दर्भ उत्तरित करते हुये वादी श्रमिक के पक्ष में निर्णीत
किया जाता है। प्रतिवादी गण को निर्दिष्ट किया जाता है कि वे श्रम न्यायालय
(5) उ०प्र०, कानपुर द्वारा दिए गए एवार्ड एवं उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के
आदेश निर्णय दिनांकित 21.08.91 के सापेक्ष में वरिष्ठता तथा उसके
आधार पर उच्चतर पदनाम एवं अनुमन्य देेय सहित अन्य हितलाभों की
पुनरीक्षित दरों का पुर्न निर्धारण करे आदेश भुगतान तथा पश्चातवर्ती भुगतान
सुनिश्चित करें। वादी को पुर्न स्थापित किए जाने के पश्चात यदि कोई विभागीय
अथवा अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही लंबित हो, जैसा कि 1993 के किसी
3
WRIC No. - 45732 of 2014
प्रकरण का मामला विचाराधीन प्रतीत होता है, तो नैसर्गित न्याय के सिद्धानतो
का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करते हुये शीघ्र अतिशीघ्र नियमानुकूल कार्यवाही
सुनिश्चित करके वादी द्वारा कार्यालय अधीक्षक के पद पर नियुक्त/प्रोन्नति हेतु
प्रत्यावेदन दिये जाने पर यथाशीघ्र नियमतः कार्यवाही प्रतिपक्ष द्वारा सुनिश्चित
की जाय। ”
7. Aforesaid award was also challenged before this Court by the
UPSRTC in Writ Petition No.39848 of 2005 which was disposed of vide
an order dated 5.7.2013 with following observations and directions:
“So for as the reference to the Labour Court is concerned,
admittedly there was no reference for consideration of promotion
on the post of the Office Superintendent though the direction has
been issued for the same. Apart from that as far as the promotion
is concerned, it is administrative and managerial work which has
to be decided and considered on the basis of the conduct, merit of
the workman and seniority apart from other ability for promotion
on a particular post, and availability of the post. Hence the same
cannot be decided by the Labour Court. However, in the present
case only direction was issued by the Labour Court to consider the
representation of the respondent employee for promotion on the
post of Office Superintendent though the reference was for to
consider the promotion on the post of Head Clerk. Even without
direction of any authority or award by the Labour Court if the the
employee is entitled for promotion in accordance with rule and is
legible for promotion on the particular post, then he is entitled for
promotion and same is required to be considered by the petitioner
Corporation. Hence in view of the fact and circumstances the
present petition is finally disposed off. The petitioner corporation
will consider the claim of the petitioner, if already no order has
been passed for promotion, expeditiously preferably within a
period of three months, after filing of a certified copy of this order,
according to the availability of the vacancy for promotion on the
post for which the petitioner is entitled, in view of the Regulation
applicable to the State Transport Corporation employees.”
8. During pendency of above Writ Petition, the workmen was considered
for promotion along with other and was promoted to the post of Head
Clerk vide an order dated 14.8.2012 since he was working on Office
Assistant (IInd) and he joined on the said post on 16.8.2012.
9. In view of an order dated 5.7.2013, passed by this Court the
respondent no.4, thereafter submitted a representation on 22.7.2013
4
WRIC No. - 45732 of 2014
claiming promotion, on the post of Office Superintendent as well as
arrears, however, it was rejected by the Managing Director vide an order
dated 19.11.2013, whereby claim of promotion to the post of Office
Superintendent was denied since respondent no.4 has not worked for
three continuous years on the post of Head Clerk, therefore has not
completed requisite eligibility for consideration for promotion on said
post. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinafter:
“मुख्यालय के पत्र संख्या-4721 सीईएनटी/12-19 निगम/वरिष्ठता/04-12,
दिनांक 11.07.2012 द्वारा सेवा नियमावली एवं संदर्भित शासनादेश दिनांक
08.05.2012 एवं दिनांक 13.05.2012 के आलोक में अन्तिमकृत वरिष्ठता सूची
जारी कर दी गयी। उक्त वरिष्ठता सूची के आधार पर दिनांक 08.08.2012 को
पुनः प्रधान लिपिक के रिक्त पदों को कार्यालय सहायक प्रथम संवर्ग से प्रोन्नत
कर भरे जाने की कार्यवाही सम्पन्न हुई। विभागीय चयन समिति की बैठक
दिनांक 08.08.2012 में श्री पाण्डेय की प्रोन्नति पर भी विचार हुआ। चयन
समिति द्वारा उपयुक्त पाए जाने पर श्री पाण्डेय की प्रोन्नति, कार्यालय आदेश
संख्या-5345 सीईएनटी/12-14 निगम/चयन/05-12, दिनांक 14.08.2012 के
तहत प्रधान लिपिक के पद पर कर दी गयी।
मा० उच्च न्यायालय के उक्त निर्णय दिनांक 05.07.2013 में प्रदत्त निर्देशानुक्रम
में श्री आर०पी०पाण्डेय को प्रधान लिपिक से कार्यालय अधीक्षक के पद पर
ु ं के आलोक में विवेचना करने
प्रोन्नति के प्रकरण में उपरोक्तावत् समग्र बिन्दओ
पर यह पाया गया कि उ०प्र० राज्य सड़क परिवहन निगम
कर्मचारी(अधिकारियों से भिन्न) सेवानियमावली 1981 के अनुसार अगले पद
पर प्रोन्नति हेतु 03 वर्ष की अर्हकारी सेवा होना अनिवार्य है जबकि श्री पाण्डेय
वर्तमान में उक्त अर्हकारी सेवा पूर्ण नहीं करते क्योंकि उनकी प्रोन्नति प्रधान
लिपिक के पद पर दिनांक 14.08.2012 को हुई है, अतः ऐसी दशा में उन्हें
कार्यालय अधीक्षक के पद पर प्रोन्नत किया जाना सम्भव नहीं है। मा० उच्च
न्यायालय के निर्णय दिनांक 05.07.2013 के अनुपालन में श्री आर०पी०
पाण्डेय, प्रधान लिपिक का प्रत्यावेदन दिनांक 22.07.2013 सम्यक्
विचारोपरान्त अस्वीकृत करते हुए अन्तिम रूप से निस्तारित किया जाता है।”
10. The petitioner workmen has meanwhile initiated multiple
proceedings under Section 6-H of UP Industrial Dispute Act, which led
to payment of Rs.2,80,533/- in total to him, however subsequently the
U.P.S.R.T.C passed an order dated 4.1.2014 to recover the said amount
by deducting it from salary.
11.Above referred order dated 19.11.2013 and a subsequent order dated
4.1.2014 were challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition
No.7162 of 2014. In the said writ petition, following interim order was
passed on 10.2.2014 by this Court :-
“ The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 5.7.2013 passed in
5
WRIC No. - 45732 of 2014
writ petition no. 39848 of 2005, the representation of the petitioner
for his promotion from the post of Head clerk to Office
Superintendent, came to be rejected by order dated 19.11.2013
passed by the General Manager (Personnel), U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Lucknow with the finding that the
petitioner was promoted as Head clerk only on 14.8.2012 but
thereafter the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda has proceeded to pass
another order dated 4.1.2014 whereby certain payments made to
the petitioner in proceeding u/s.6-H of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, for execution of award passed in adjudication case
no. 6 of 2001, is sought to be realised by making deduction from
salary on the ground that such payments were wrongly made to
the petitioner. It is contended that these payments were made to
the petitioner in execution of the award which had attained
finality, thus, it was not open to the respondent Corporation to be
judge in its own cause in holding that such payments were
wrongly made.
Prima facie, the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner appears to have force and the matter require
consideration after exchange of affidavits.
Sri Nishant Mehrotra has accepted notice on behalf of
respondents. He may file counter affidavit within a month. The
petitioner shall have two weeks' thereafter to file rejoinder
affidavit.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, the recovery in pursuance of the
order dated 4.1.2014 passed by the Regional Manager, U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda shall
remain in abeyance.”
12. The petitioner (workmen) has also filed a Writ Petition No.13917 of
2014, whereby he has challenged an order dated 19.11.2013, which was
already challenged in earlier writ petition and the petitioner has also
sought a writ of mandamus that he may be considered for promotion on
the next higher post i.e. Office Superintendent.
13. Petitioner (workmen) has also filed a subsequent application under
Section 6-H (1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, claiming Rs.2,16,270/-
i.e. alleged difference of wages from 1.11.2011 to 30.9.2013. Said
application was decided and an order of recovery Rs.1,68,082/- was
issued against the Corporation vide an order dated 18.7.2014 which was
6
WRIC No. - 45732 of 2014
challenged by the U.P.S.R.T.C in Writ Petition No 45732 of 2014,
wherein following interim order was passed on 1.9.2014:
“ Issue notice to the respondent no.4 returnable at an early date
fixing 15.10.2014.
List on 15.10.2014.
Subject to deposit of the entire amount within a period of two
weeks' from today, operation of the impugned order dated
18.07.2014 shall be kept in abeyance till 15.10.2014. The half of
the amount shall be released in favour of the respondent-workman
forthwith.”
14. During the pendency of these writ petitions, petitioner has already
crossed age of superannuation since he has declared his age about 48
years in the year 2014.
15. The first issue for consideration before this Court is as to whether a
writ of mandamus can be issued after the petitioner got retired that he be
considered for promotion on post of Office Superintendent or that he be
treated on the post of Head Clerk from the date his juniors were
appointed.
16. All arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this
regard has no legal basis since he has not been able to show that on the
date of consideration for promotion he was qualified and that once an
order of earlier promotion dated 14.8.2012 on the post of Head Clerk
was never challenged, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned
order. This Court by an order dated 5.7.2013 has only directed to
consider promotion of petitioner if eligible and entitled.
17. It is well settled that a consideration for promotion can be made only
when an employee is in service and now since relationship between
Corporation and respondent no.4 as employer and employee has already
come to an end, a prayer for promotion cannot be considered and for that
Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Government
of West Bengal & Ors.Vs. Doctor Amal Satpathi & Ors, 2024 INSC
906.
7
WRIC No. - 45732 of 2014
18. Second issue is in regard of order of recovery passed against the
petitioner i.e. U.P.S.R.T.C
19. From perusal of orders on record, it is evident that first award was
passed on 18.1.1985 and same was implemented since the petitioner was
treated as Office Assistant (Second) w.e.f. 17.11.1978.
20. So far as second award dated 5.10.2004 is concerned, it was
substantially modified by the judgment passed by this Court on 5.7.2013
wherein the said award was under challenge. Relevant part of it has
already been mentioned above. A direction in the said award that
petitioner be treated to be promoted on next higher post was set aside,
since no such direction can be passed except for consideration for
promotion in accordance with applicable Service Rules. Accordingly,
vide an order dated 5.7.2013 passed by this Court it was directed that
Corporation can consider claim of the petitioner for promotion.
Meanwhile, petitioner (workmen) was considered for promotion and was
promoted on the post of Head Clerk on 14.8.2012. Order dated
14.8.2012 was never challenged at behest of petitioner, therefore, said
order has attained finality.
21. Petitioner thereafter has filed an application that he may now be
promoted on the post of Office Superintendent, but since he was not
qualified, as he has not worked for at least 3 years of qualifying service
on the post of Head Clerk, therefore, prayer was rejected.
22. In aforesaid circumstances, once an order dated 14.8.2012 for
promotion on the post of Head Clerk has attained finality and admittedly,
petitioner has not served for 3 years as Head Clerk, he was not eligible to
be considered for further promotion on the post of Office
Superintendent, therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order
dated 19.11.2013.
23. In aforesaid circumstances when benefit of an award dated 5.10.2004
and a subsequent judgment was passed by this Court on 5.7.2013, was
considered any claim for granting arrears between 1983 to 2005, 2005
to 2008 and 2009 to 2010 was unsustainable, since it was not based on
8
WRIC No. - 45732 of 2014
any predetermined claim. Accordingly, arrears for aforesaid period of
Rs.2,80,533/ was wrongly awarded to the petitioner/workman, however
since said money has already been paid way back in the year 2013,
therefore said amount cannot be recovered after retirement of the
petitioner and for that Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme
Court in Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. The District Judge Cuttack &
Ors. 2025 INSC 449
24. Third issue is in regard to the order passed by Labour Court under
Section 6-H (1) of Industrial Disputes Act, whereby an order of recovery
of Rs.1,68,082/- was passed on 18.7.2014 against the U.P.S.R.T.C.
25. Court finds that even from a bare perusal of the application dated
10.12 2013, which is on record of Writ Petition No. 45732 of 2014, does
not state all relevant facts that his claim for promotion was already been
rejected and during pendency of said proceedings, an order dated
4.1.2014 was passed for recovery, which was stayed by this Court vide
an order dated 10.12.2014 as well as that petitioner's claim for
promotion was also rejected and said order was never placed during
consideration. Accordingly, recovery of Rs.168082/ would not be
justified and however since, in terms of interim order, half of the
amount has already been released in favour of the petitioner, therefore,
that cannot be recovered now i.e. after retirement of the workmen.
26. So far as order of recovery of rest of amount is concerned, is hereby
quashed, since impugned order was passed without taking note of
various events, which occurred either before the application was filed or
before the impugned order was passed as well as order of recovery was
also unjustified, since the Court vide an order dated 5.7.2013 has passed
a direction to consider the claim of the Workmen for promotion and not a
direction to grant promotion, therefore, order of recovery was passed on
misreading of the said order.
27. Accordingly, (a) order dated 18.7.2014 impugned in Writ Petition
No. 45732 of 2014 filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. is quashed subject to amount
9
WRIC No. - 45732 of 2014
already paid to the workmen during pendency of this writ petition in
terms of interim order dated 1.9.2014. This writ petition is disposed of.
(b) Writ Petition No.7162 of 2014 filed by the workmen is disposed of
that since no recovery can be made post retirement, therefore, though
impugned order dated 19.11.2013 and 4.1.2014 may be legally justified,
but in given circumstances it cannot be implemented.
(c) In Writ Petition No.13917 of 2014 filed by the workmen, prayer for
promotion on the post of Office Superintendent is accordingly rejected
and so far as prayer to quash the order dated 19.11.2013, is disposed of
as per direction made in Writ Petition No.7162 of 2014.
28. All the three writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 30, 2026
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…