Allahabad High Court
Chandra Shekhar vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4129 of 2014
Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Forest Lko. & Or
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ninnie Shrivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 01.02.2014 passed by respondent No.4 whereby representation of the petitioner for regularization is rejected as well as for a prayer for mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner on Group-D post of Mali as per the regularization policy of the State from the date of persons junior to petitioner have been regularized.
3. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a daily wager Mali since March, 1987 under the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Division, Sitapur and is continuously working as such till date. Petitioner along with other workmen approached the High Court and High Court by order dated 24.04.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.347 (S/S) of 1993 found that the petitioner and other workmen were appointed prior to 29.06.1991 and are entitled for being considered for regularization in accordance to U.P. State Government Employees Daily Wage Regularization Rules, 2001. Meanwhile, Tribunal directed payment of salary as paid to the regular similarly situated employees. Against the said order of Tribunal, State Government approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.347 (S/S) of 1993. The said petition was decided by the High Court vide order dated 24.01.2007. By its judgment High Court directed State Government to pay wages/salary of minimum pay-scale as admissible to class IV employees to the workmen including the petitioner. Against the said order, petitioner and other workmen approached the Apex Court which rejected the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 01.07.2008. Thus petitioner's claim that though they are being paid minimum of the pay-scale but their claim for regularization is still pending. The respondents prepared the seniority list on 03.12.2009 for regularization. In the said list, petitioner is kept as non-qualified at Sl. 62. However there is no reason mentioned for his being non qualified.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that except for the first five persons in the seniority list all other persons are junior to petitioner, who have been regularized as per the said seniority list. Therefore, petitioner had filed writ petition No.7366 (S/S) of 2013 in which this Court by order dated 06.12.2013 directed the representation of the petitioner to be considered and decided. In compliance of the said order, impugned order dated 01.02.2014 is passed whereby the representation of the petitioner is rejected. While rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the impugned order again says that petitioner is not qualified for the regularization but again no reasons are given. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, petitioner has specifically stated that he was appointed in March, 1987 and continues to work since then. The reply to the same is given in paragraph 30 of the counter affidavit. In the said paragraph also though the State has not disputed that petitioner was appointed in March, 1987 and is continuously working since then but has merely stated that the petitioner has not worked during the aforesaid period of time. There are no specific details given as to for what period the petitioner has not worked. There is also no denial that similarly situated other persons, as petitioner, were also given regular appointment. It goes without saying that working of daily wagers artificial breaks occur but the same are always ignored for regularization purposes. Therefore, even presuming that for some period petitioner had not worked, the same would not impact right of the petitioner for regularization. There are no details given either in the seniority list or in the impugned order or even in the counter affidavit filed by the State regarding the period for which petitioner did not work, therefore, the stand of the State cannot be believed.
5. In view thereof, impugned order dated 01.02.2014 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to immediately regularize the petitioner from the date persons junior to the petitioner have been regularized. Such an order shall be passed by respondent No.4 within a period of one month from the date of certified copy of this Court is placed before him.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021
Shubhankar
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
