Om Prakash Dixit vs State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7261 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 11811 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Dixit
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Devlp. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aasif Razzaque Khan,Pratiti
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Ms. Pratiti, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Parul Vajpayee, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for Nagar Nigam through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that she has provided copy of writ petition to Sri Namit Sharma on 20.6.2021 and this Court vide order dated 28.6.2021 directed Sri Sharma to seek complete instructions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.28 to the writ petition, which is an order dated 4.2.2020 passed by this Court in Service Single No.2983 of 2020; Irfan Abbas & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others. For the convenience, the order dated 4.2.2020 is being reproduced herein below:-

"1. Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf respondent no.3 and 4 today and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Alok Sharma, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

3. The subject matter of the present writ petition broadly relates to the regularization of services of the petitioners on the Group 'D' posts.

4. It is stated that the petitioners earlier approached this Court by means of the Writ Petition Nos. 6755 (S/S) of 2012, 6756 (S/S) of 2012, 6758 (S/S) of 2012 and 7043 (S/S) of 2012 challenging the Government Order dated 23.07.2012, whereby State Government directed to terminate the services of the persons, who had been illegally engaged, with consequential relief to allow the petitioners to work and discharge their duties on their respective posts. On the strength of interim order the petitioners were allowed to work. Subsequently, vide judgment(s) and order(s) dated 02.02.2018 and 24.5.2018, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed, against which, Special Appeal (Defective) No.114 of 2018, Special Appeal (Defective) No. 158 of 2018 and Special Appeal (Defective) No. 338 of 2018 were filed, wherein status-quo was directed to be maintained in respect of the petitioners.

5. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by means of the Writ Petition No. 24942 (S/S) of 2018 and 29617 (S/S) of 2018 for issuance of writ of mandamus to the opposite parties for regularizing the services of the petitioners on the post on which they are working. The writ petitions were filed on the strength of U.P. 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 the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission), Rules 2016 (in short "Rules of 2016"). The said writ petitions were finally disposed of vide judgment(s) and order(s) dated 05.09.2018 and 10.10.2018.

6. While deciding the above mentioned writ petitions, this Court considered the provisions of Section 106 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 and observed with respect to the creation of the post by the Municipal Corporation.

7. After considering the relevant provisions and the facts of the case, this Court gave liberty to the petitioners to move representation with respect to the creation of post in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Act, 1959 and also for the purposes of regularization. This Court also issued the direction to the opposite party No. 3-Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow to decide the issue by means of a reasoned and speaking order. The relevant portion of the order dated 05.09.2018 reads as under:-

"In regard to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the controversy of contractual employee was considered by the Allahabad High Court, I perused the judgment. In the writ petitions, the claim in regard to the continuance of contractual employee was under consideration whose services were discontinued, therefore, the ratio of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The claim of the petitioners is for the consideration of creation of post and to regularize the services of the petitioners on the strength that they are continuing since long.

In view of the observation made above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievances before the respondent No.3 by enclosing the relevant documents for creation of post and to consider their regularization in services within 10 days from today.

In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate reasoned speaking order shall be passed by the respondent No.3 in accordance with law within a further period of 6 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. "

8. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred their claim/representation before the competent Authority/opposite party No. 3-Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow.

9. The decision as provided by this Court was not taken and on account of the same, a Contempt Petition No. 359 of 2019 was filed. In the Contempt Petition, the concerned opposite party appeared and stated that the proposal with respect to creation of the posts has been sent to the State Government and in view of the said fact, the contempt petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2019, which reads as under:-

"List revised. None has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner nor anyone is present for the opposite party.

This Court has noticed that order passed by writ Court has been complied with and the compliance order has been filed as SCA-1 to the short counter affidavit, as such nothing remains to be adjudicated in this petition.

In view of the above, notices are discharged. The contempt petition is dismissed. Consigned to record."

10. On being not satisfied by the action of the opposite party No. 3, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 again preferred the Writ Petition No. 1609 (S/S) of 2019, which was disposed of on 30.05.2019 with direction to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with the Rules of 2016.

11. It is also stated that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 11.04.2019, passed in the Writ Petition No. 10114 (S/S) of 2019 (Surendra Mohan Pandey & others v. State of U.P. & another), the State Government vide order dated 16.09.2019 has directed to regularize the services of the petitioners of the Writ Petition No. 10114 (S/S) of 2019 (Surendra Mohan Pandey & others v. State of U.P. & another), who are similarly situated to the petitioners.

12. It is further stated that till date the opposite party No. 1-State Government has not taken any decision on the proposal sent by the Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 05.08.2019 and the matter is still pending disposal before the opposite party No. 1. After the proposal sent by the opposite party No. 3 dated 05.08.2019 to the State Government/opposite party No. 1, the Executive Committee of opposite party No. 3 took a decision in its meeting held on 26.08.2019 in favour of the claim of the petitioners for regularization and thereafter, the opposite party No. 4 forwarded the same to the opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 02.11.2019.

13. In view of the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the main relief i.e. relief no. 1 prayed for by the petitioners, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No. 1 to take decision on the proposal dated 05.08.2019 sent by the Nagar Nigam within the time schedule as framed by this Court and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners.

14. The aforesaid factual position has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

15. In view of the aforesaid, the admitted position is that the proposal for creation of post for the purposes of regularization of the petitioners as well as other similarly situated persons is still pending disposal before the opposite party No. 1 and the decision is awaited.

16. In view of the above and without expressing any view on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No. 1 to take decision on the proposal dated 05.08.2019 sent by the opposite party No. 3-Nagar Nigam, Lucknow for the creation of posts for the purposes of regularization of the petitioners as well as other similarly situated persons expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

17. In case, the opposite party No. 1 takes a decision in support of the claim of the petitioners, then in that event the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 shall consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services strictly as per Rule and Government Orders applicable on the subject within a further period of three months.

18. In above terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the grievance of the present petitioner is identical with the petitioners of aforesaid writ petition in re; Irfan Abbas & Ors. (supra), therefore, the present writ petition may be decided in terms of order dated 4.2.2020.

I have perused the contents of present writ petition and the order dated 4.2.2020 passed by this Court in re;Irfan Abbas & Ors. (supra), whereby this Court without expressing any view on merits decided that writ petition directing the concerning authority to take appropriate decision within time stipulated.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition may be disposed of finally in terms of order dated 4.2.2020 passed by this Court in re; Irfan Abbas & Ors. (supra).

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of finally in terms of order dated 4.2.2020 passed by this Court in re; Irfan Abbas & Ors. (supra) and the present petitioner may be extended the benefit of order dated 4.2.2020 passed by this Court.

Order Date :- 8.7.2021

RBS/-