HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 24 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8006 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ashok [Objection Filed] Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secy. Dept.Of Forest Lko Counsel for Petitioner :- S.A.Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.D.Shahi Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying inter-alia for direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation on the post of Maali from the date the persons engaged after the year 1989 have been regularized.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has performed his duties in Mahdoiya Gram Samaj Vriksha, Lucknow Range from the year 1989 to 1996 and thereafter he was posted under Sharda Sahay Nagar, Lucknow Range from 1996 to June,1986. After being posted at different places, the petitioner was lastly posted under Narauni Vanshigarh LIT Section, and performed duties to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The grievance of the petitioner is that his case for regularization has not been considered by the opposite parties, though he has served the department for more than two decades and was working on the cut off date as provided in the U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Rules, 2001. He further submits that six persons were regularized in the year 2002-03 but the petitioner has been treated differently and as such the action of the respondents is in breach of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that denial of benefit of regularization for which the petitioner is legally entitled, is highly arbitrary, unjustified and causing great injustice to the petitioners apart from being discriminatory. Further, he submits that the petitioner has rendered several long years of service but he has yet not been regularized, whereas persons junior to him have been regularised. He further submitted that on account of interim order dated 24.11.2010, the petitioner is being paid minimum of pay scale admissible to the petitioners' cadre. In contrast, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has not worked regularly since the date of their engagement and infact had worked intermittently with breaks in his services and as such in view of Rule 4(1)(a) he is not entitled for regularization as claimed.
It is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in 1989 and was working on the cut off date provided in Regularization Rules The requirement under the Regularisation Rules is that an incumbent was directly appointed on daily wage basis in a government service before 29.6.1991 and is/are continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the said Rules. The further requirement under the Rules is that the person must have possessed requisite qualification required for regular appointment on that post at the time of such employment on daily wage basis. It is also relevant to mention that this Court in the case of Janardan yadav vs.State of U.P. [(2008) 1 UPLBEC 498, held that this Court does not find any ambiguity in Rule 4(1) providing as to which kind of persons would be entitled for regularization and it nowhere requires that the incumbent must have worked throughout from the date of initial engagement till the date of commencement of the Rules. In the situation, the stand of the State is contrary to the Rules and it amounts to adding and reading certain words in Rule 4(1) which have not been inserted by the legislature. As the rules are applicable only to daily wage employees, the Rules framing authority was well aware that such employee could not have worked continuously throughout and therefore, has clearly provided that the engagement must be before 29.6.1991 and he is continuing as such on the date of commencement of the Rule.
Needless to observe here that recently the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 13.8.2015 whereby it has been provided that persons working on daily wage/work charge/contractual basis in the department of the State Government, its autonomous bodies, public undertakings/local bodies, development authorities and Zila Pancahyat, who were engaged upto 31.3.1996 shall be regularized.
In view of above, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization under the U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Rules, 2001 and in the light of law laid down in Janardan case [supra] within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 17.12.2015 MH/-