Recently, the Allahabad High Court delivered a significant ruling that could redefine the interpretation of employment regularization under Uttar Pradesh’s statutory framework. The Court examined the contentious question of what qualifies as “continuous service” for daily-wage workers aspiring for permanent status. The judgment closely analyzes the Uttar Pradesh Regularization Rules, 2016, particularly considering whether intermittent breaks in service negate eligibility for regularization.
The case stems from a writ petition filed by six daily-wage workers (Malis) employed at Government Gardens in Agra between 1998 and 2001. The petitioners sought regularization under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016. In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed authorities to consider their regularization claims, ignoring artificial breaks in service. However, the Deputy Director, Horticulture, Agra, rejected their claims, citing non-continuous service based on a chart detailing their work periods. Challenging this rejection, the petitioners approached the High Court again, and a Single Judge allowed their writ petition, directing regularization for five of the six petitioners, relying on the 2008 ruling in Janardan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008). The State appealed this decision, leading to the present special appeal.
The State argued that the Single Judge overlooked the requirement of continuous service under the 2016 Rules, as clarified by the Hindi version of the earlier 2001 Rules. Citing precedents like State of U.P. v. Ram Roop Yadav (2016) and State of U.P. v. Raj Kumar Srivastava (2017), the State contended that only artificial or short breaks in service could be disregarded, and prolonged absences, such as those exceeding one and a half years, disqualified the petitioners from regularization. The petitioners, relying on the Single Judge’s interpretation in Janardan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008), argued that continuous service was not explicitly required by the 2016 Rules, and their engagement before the cut-off date of December 31, 2001, and employment on September 12, 2016, sufficed for regularization.
The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, emphasized the necessity of continuous service for regularization, referencing the Hindi text of the 2001 Rules, which mandated uninterrupted employment from before the cut-off date until the rules’ enforcement. The Court observed, “Unless the requirement of continuous working is read into the rules, the Regularization rule itself would be open for challenge on the ground of it being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The only exception which can be countenanced is the artificial break or period in which the employee is prevented from work by the employer.”
While citing the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)and Ors., the Court noted that a long period of time, defined as 10 years, justifies regularization to address inequities faced by daily wagers. The Court further clarified, “Since in the facts of the case, we find that there had been a break of more than one and a half year in the working of the petitioner during the relevant period as has been admitted on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been working continuously as required under the Rules of 2001 so as to be considered for regularization.”
The Court criticized the Single Judge’s reliance on Janardan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008), for failing to consider the Hindi text of the 2001 Rules, as highlighted in subsequent rulings.
Concluding its verdict, the Court allowed the State’s special appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge. It directed that “The selection committee shall accord fresh consideration to the claim of writ petitioner for regularization keeping in view the observations made above. Such consideration would be within a period of three months by passing a reasoned order.” The petitioners were granted four weeks to furnish explanations for their periods of absence, with the committee entrusted to assess whether such gaps were due to voluntary conduct or artificial breaks imposed by the employer. The matter was thus remitted to the competent authority for fresh adjudication, ensuring the petitioners a fair opportunity to clarify their service records in light of the judicial findings.
Case Title: State of UP and Ors. Vs. Mahaveer Singh and Ors.
Case No.: SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 846 of 2024
Coram: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Advocate for Appellant: C.S.C., S.C. Ratan Deep Mishra
Advocate for Respondent: Advocate Vinod Kumar Singh
Read Order @ Lateslaws.com
Picture Source :
