Continuous service of three decades precludes State from denying pensionary benefits by citing lack of formal regularization.

The writ petitioner (Respondent No. 1) was appointed as a Junior Accounts Clerk in undivided Uttar Pradesh in 1985, ranking higher in the select list than one Devendra Patni.

Upon the creation of Uttarakhand, both opted for the new State.

While Patni was allocated in 2006, the petitioner’s allocation was delayed until 2015 due to administrative lag.

On 08.04.2015, the petitioner was posted to a vacant Assistant Accountant post and received all financial benefits of a regular employee until retirement.

The State refused pensionary benefits, contending that the petitioner was never regularized because the post had been declared a "dying cadre" and no regularization exercise occurred after his 2015 posting.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the grant of pensionary benefits, which the State challenged in this intra-court appeal.

Whether the State can deny pensionary benefits to an employee on the grounds of non-regularization and "dying cadre" status when the delay in allocation and regularization was attributable solely to the State.

Whether the denial of benefits to the petitioner while granting them to a junior colleague (Devendra Patni) constitutes unlawful discrimination.

a welfare State cannot take advantage of its own wrong or administrative delays to deprive an employee of earned benefits.

continuous service for decades (30+ years) cannot be treated as ad-hoc to deny pensionary benefits, as such a stand is unreasonable and arbitrary.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s senior status in the original select list was undisputed and that his junior, Devendra Patni, had already received all pensionary benefits.

The Bench reasoned that the petitioner could not be penalized for the State's delay in finalising his allocation to Uttarakhand or for the State's failure to conduct a fresh regularization exercise after his 2015 posting.

Since the petitioner was posted against a vacant sanctioned post and served for over three decades, the Court found the "dying cadre" argument irrelevant to the entitlement of pension.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's finding that the State cannot be permitted to benefit from its own administrative lapses to the detriment of a long-serving employee.

The Court condoned the 152-day delay in filing the appeal but found no merit in the State's substantive arguments.

The State is required to provide the petitioner with pensionary benefits and other retiral dues as ordered by the Single Judge.