Allahabad High Court
Sri Ram And Others vs Divisional Forest Officer And ... on 29 July, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19046 of 2003
Petitioner :- Sri Ram And Others
Respondent :- Divisional Forest Officer And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application
Cause shown for the delay in filing the restoration application is to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay in filing the restoration application is therefore condoned. The delay condonation application no. 3 of 2019 is allowed.
Order on Restoration Application
Cause shown for non appearance of the counsel on the date fixed is to the satisfaction of the Court. Order dated 24.5.2018, therefore, is recalled. The restoration application no. 4 of 2019 is allowed. Writ petition stands restored to its original number.
Order on Petition
Prayer in the writ petition has been made to command the respondents to consider their regularization in view of the fact that they are working since 1978-79 onwards.
A counter affidavit has been filed, as per which, petitioners claim for regularization was not covered under the Rules. It is also mentioned in paragraph 8 that petitioners are being paid minimum of pay scale as prescribed by the State Government.
Though it is asserted that petitioners claim was not found fit for regularization, but specific orders in that regard have not been placed on record. The annexures to the counter affidavit merely notices that on 30th May, 2002 petitioners claim was not accepted as documents were not annexed to show that they are continuously working from 29th June, 1991 to 21st December, 2001.
The U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 have since been amended in the year 2016. It is otherwise expected that the respondents would accord consideration to petitioners claim for regularization after checking their own records. Merely because petitioners have not annexed specific certificates of their continuous working would not be a ground to discard their claim for regularization. It is asserted that petitioners have continuously been working and many of them are on the verge of attaining the age of superannuation.
This Court on 2nd May, 2003 had already issued a direction to the respondents to consider petitioners claim for regularization and to allow minimum of wages in the pay scale without benefit of allowances. This direction is in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others, Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1045 of 2016), decided on 14.11.2018.
In view of the facts as have been noticed above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no. 1 to accord consideration to petitioners claim for regularization in accordance with the rules of regularization, as it exists, by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. Liberty stands reserved to the petitioners to annex all materials in support of their claim of continuous working since 1979 onwards. All consequential benefits shall be extended to the petitioners in terms of such determination.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021
Ranjeet Sahu
