Allahabad High Court
Giri Raj Srivastava And Others vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 2 May, 2016
Bench: Devendra Kumar Arora
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 24
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2432 of 2010
Petitioner :- Giri Raj Srivastava And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy.Geology And Mining Dept
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.M.Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
According to the petitioners' Counsel, petitioner no.1 and 2 being skilled labour were engaged as daily wagers on Group C post whereas petitioner no.3 was given appointment on group 'D' post on 1.1.1997. As certain persons were regularized in service, petitioners also claimed regularization and when no heed was paid, they filed writ petition no. 4319 (SS) of 2000; Ram Pal and seven others vs. State of U.P. which was disposed of by this Court on 26.4.2000 with the directions that benefit of the judgment and order dated 26.4.2000 passed in the case of one Jitendra kumar shall also be extended to the petitioners. Thereafter, the opposite parties again regularized service of certain persons on pick and choose basis but rejected the claim of petitioners on flimsy grounds which was not only discriminatory but contumacious in nature as it was against the directions and spirit of the order of this Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are still discharging their duties from the date of engagements on their respective posts and as such they are entitled for regularization in view of the Regularization Rules and recent Government Order dated 24th February, 2016. Therefore, denial of regularization to the petitioner is wholly unjustified and in breach of the provisions of the aforesaid Rules.
In contrast, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that petitioners were engaged in exigency of work on a Class IV post, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief as sought for by him. He further submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as alleged by the petitioners.
Having considered the submission, made by the parties and perused the material on record, there is no quarrel on the point that the petitioners were engaged in different capacity by respondents way back in the year 1997.They are litigating for their right to be regularized in service since last sixteen years as the State Government has issued orders and framed rules for regularization of daily wagers from time to time but on account of lackadaisical attitude of the authorities, such a benefit could not be extended to the petitioners.
After scrutiny of records, there is no quarrel on the point that petitioners were engaged in 1997 and today also they are working with respondents but their services have yet not been regularized. It may be clarified that the requirement under the the Regularization Rules is that an incumbent was directly appointed on daily wage basis in a government service 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.One thing be kept in mind by the authorities that daily wagers are not appointed against a sanctioned post but are given engagement in exigency of work.
It is also relevant to mention that in the case of Janardan Yadav vs.State of U.P; [(2008) 1 UPLBEC 498, held that there is no 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, such a stand of the State that the employee had not worked continuously or there are breaks in service, would be contrary to the Rules and would amount 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 24.2.2016 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 31.3.2001 shall be regularized. In these circumstances, there is no justification in not regularizing the services of the petitioners. It may be mentioned that in the said Government Order it has further been provided that if the post is not available then necessary steps be taken for creation of the post.
In view of above, a writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization as per Government Order dated 24th February, 2016 and in the light of law laid down in Janardan's case [supra] and pass appropriate orders in this regard within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The order, so passed, shall also be communicated to the petitioners.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31.3.2006 is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 2.5.2016
MH/-
