The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired worker of the Institute of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education (ICC&CE), University of Allahabad searching for post-retiral advantages, holding that pension and different retiral dues can’t be granted within the absence of any statutory rule offering for such entitlement.
The Court held that even when the institute was an integral a part of the University, that alone wouldn’t mechanically entitle staff to pension or different retiral advantages. The Court famous that the petitioner did not level to any service rule, statute, or scheme granting such advantages to staff of the self-financed institute.
The petitioner additionally argued that some staff of the institute had been granted post-retiral advantages and subsequently she ought to obtain comparable remedy. The Court rejected this plea, invoking the doctrine of “negative equality”, which prevents courts from extending a profit merely as a result of it was wrongly granted to others.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery whereas referring to U.P. Roadways Retired Officials & Officers Assn. v. State of U.P., (2024) 9 SCC 331 noticed, “As referred above, the post retiral benefits could only be granted if rule permits. However, in present case, petitioner is not able to show that any rule or statute provides that petitioner is entitled for post retiral benefits. Only on basis that Institute is an integral part of University or petitioner was granted other benefits, it cannot be held that she is entitled for post retiral benefits”.
“The Court also takes note that when University became the Central University in 2005, services of the petitioner and others remained same and in case petitioner and similarly situated other employees are entitled for post retiral benefits before Act, 2005 came into force, said entitlement shall be continued otherwise not. However, as referred above none of provisions referred above has specifically indicated that petitioner and similarly situated persons were entitled for post retiral benefits. No service rule is brought on record in support of their submissions”, the Bench famous.
Senior Advocate Anurag Khanna appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Manish Goyal appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the petitioner, Rekha Singh, had served as Assistant Director/Director within the ICC&CE and retired from service. Earlier, she had approached the High Court searching for cost of wage from November 2014 till her retirement in 2017, which was allowed by the Court in 2018.
The path was subsequently upheld when the Special Leave Petition filed by the University earlier than the Supreme Court was dismissed.
After retirement, Singh once more approached the High Court searching for post-retiral advantages together with pension, gratuity, provident fund, and different dues. The University rejected her declare, stating that ICC&CE was a short lived self-financing institute and that staff of the institute have been engaged on a short lived or contractual foundation with none provision for post-retiral advantages beneath the related ordinances.
Before the Court, the petitioner argued that the institute was an integral a part of the University and that staff have been borne on the energy of college departments. It was additional contended that beneath Section 5(d) of the University of Allahabad Act, 2005, the service situations of staff have been protected when the University transitioned from a state college to a central college.
The Court relied on precedents to reiterate that pension is just not a bounty however a invaluable proper that should come up from a governing rule or scheme. In the absence of such a provision, no enforceable declare may be made for pensionary advantages.
Therefore, holding that no authorized provision supported the petitioner’s declare and that parity can’t be claimed based mostly on allegedly irregular advantages granted to others, the Court declined to intervene with the University’s resolution and dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Rekha Singh v. Union of India and others [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:45134]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.), Mohd. Atif, Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, Rahul Sahai, Sanjay Singh, Advocates.
Respondents: Manish Goyal, Senior Advocate, Chandan Sharma, A.S.G.I., Rijwan Ali Akhtar, Advocates.
