Allahabad High Court
Sant Lal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 31 October, 2012
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13636 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sant Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajesh Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
The petitioner's claim for regularization of his service, was rejected by an order dated 04.12.2010, against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
In the impugned order, it has only been stated that the petitioner was an employee on daily wage basis in the year 1981 and since, he had not worked for more than 240 days in a calender year, his services could not be regularized under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group- D Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2001).
In the counter affidavit, the respondents have come out with an additional stand, namely that the petitioner had only worked for a limited period in the year, 1981 and thereafter did not work for the next 17 years. This fact is however, not indicated in the impugned order and therefore, this additional fact can not be taken into consideration.
Rule 4 of the Rules of 2001 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present issue and have formulated the said rule, which has been extracted hereunder:
4. (1) Any person who-
(a) was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group-D post in the government service before June, 29,1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and
(b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available in Group-D post on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or order.
From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, the only requirement for consideration for regularisation is that a person appointed on daily wage basis should be in Government Service on or before 29th June, 1991 and is still continuing in service on the date of the commencement of these Rules. The Rules have come into force from 21st September, 2001. The petitioner's case for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that he had not been worked for 240 days in the year 1981. Rule-4 does not prescribe that a daily wage person should work for 240 days in a calender year. The Rule only prescribes that he should have worked on daily wage basis on or before 29th June, 1991 and is continuing in service on the date of commencement of these Rules of 2001.
In the light of the aforesaid, the rejection of the petitioner's case is patently erroneous and can not be sustained.
The impugned order is quashed.
Writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted again to the Authority to re-consider the matter and pass a fresh order in the light of observations made above within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 31.10.2012
Sanjeev
