Allahabad High Court
Ram Ashish Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11121 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ram Ashish Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to consider absorption of petitioner on a regular post in light of Absorption Policy, dated 9.10.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was engaged for carrying out census work during the census operation in 1991 and he worked from July, 1991 to 31st December, 1992. It is stated that such retrenched employees were liable to be absorbed in the employment of State and authorities without any justifiable reason have not accorded consideration to petitioner's claim. Various orders passed by this Court from time to time have been relied upon. The Government Order dated 9.10.2007 has also been referred to for the purpose.
Petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel. It is pointed out that similar Writ Petition No. 5774 of 2016 has been dismissed by this Court on 21st March, 2017.
Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner was engaged for a short duration between 1991 to 1992. In case he wanted consideration of his claim for absorption, the petitioner ought to have approached the competent authority within a reasonable period of time. In the absence of any consideration of such cause, approach to this Court was also permissible only within reasonable period of time. Merely because certain other persons were pursuing their grievance before the Court, would not explain latches on part of the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed after more than 27 years of the petitioner's discontinuance. In case petitioner was absorbed in the employment of the State, he would be nearing the age of superannuation. After such inordinate delay, this Court would not be inclined to entertain the petitioner's grievance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 63952 of 2010, decided on 7th December, 2018.
Perusal of the aforesaid judgment would go to show that the petitioner therein was continuously pursuing his claim and the writ petition was filed in the year 2010. The facts of the present case are, therefore, are distinct, inasmuch as, petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2019.
It may be clarified that regular employment in State has to be granted only after following a transparent and fair process of recruitment which is otherwise in accordance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Regularization is merely an exception which is to be considered in accordance with rules on account of continuous working for a very long period of time. This aspect of the matter has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Merely because somebody has worked in some census project for a period of few months or a year would not justify a decision to claim regularization after almost 27 years of his working. The policy of the State has to be read in conjunction with the principles laid down in Article 16 of the Constitution of India and such a right of absorption cannot be claimed at any point of time.
The writ petition is grossly barred by unexplained latches and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Ranjeet Sahu
