Allahabad High Court

Kailash Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2021

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10374 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Kailash Singh Yadav
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nilamber Tripathi,Nilambar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

1. Petitioner has retired from the post of Junior Engineer in Jalkal Vibhag, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, and is aggrieved by an order dated 28.2.2018/5.3.2018, contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereby his objection to the tentative seniority list has been rejected. The petitioner's seniority is fixed w.e.f. 15.11.2007, when he was regularized as Junior Engineer. A further prayer is made to treat the petitioner's initial appointment from the date of his initial engagement on adhoc basis and to extend the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits, accordingly.

2. The writ petition was entertained and time was granted to learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit on 4.2.2021. No counter affidavit, however, has been filed. Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, no further opportunity is required to be given for filing counter affidavit and the writ petition is disposed of finally, at the stage of admission, by this order.

3. Admitted facts, which emerge on record, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as adhoc Junior Engineer in the Jal Sansthan, Jhansi on 23.5.1990. He continued to work as such continuously till his services were regularized by the respondents on 15.11.2007. The petitioner's seniority is accordingly indicated in the tentative seniority list. Petitioner objected to the provisional seniority on the ground that persons junior to him since have been regularized prior in point of time, therefore, his placement in seniority list must refer to his initial adhoc appointment and not 15.11.2007. It is this objection which has been rejected by the order impugned.

4. It is not in issue that services of petitioner are governed by the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules of 1966'). The Rules of 1966 have been amended vide notification dated 10.4.2003 and Section 21-A has been introduced, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"21-क. तदर्थ नियुक्तियों का विनियमितीकरण- (1) किसी व्यक्ति को-

(एक) जो सेवा में 30 जून, 1998 के पूर्व तदर्थ आधार पर सीधे नियुक्त किया गया हो और इस नियमावली के प्रारम्भ के दिनांक को उस रूप में निरन्तर सेवारत हो;

(दो) जो ऐसी तदर्थ नियुक्ति के समय नियम 12 के अधीन नियमित नियुक्ति के लिये अपेक्षित विहित अर्हताएँ रखता हो; और

(तीन) जिसने, यथास्थिति तीन वर्ष की निरन्तर सेवा पूरी कर ली हो, या पूरी करने के पश्चात, किसी स्थायी या अस्थायी रिक्ति में, जो उपलब्ध हो, नियमित नियुक्ति के लिये ऐसी रिक्ति में इस नियमावली में निहित उपबन्धों के अनुसार, कोई नियमित नियुक्ति करने के पूर्व उसके सेवा अभिलेख और उपयुक्तता के आधार पर विचार किया जायेगा।

(2) इस नियमावली के अधीन नियमित नियुक्ति करने में, अनुसूचित जातियों , अनुसूचित जन जातियों, पिछड़े वर्गो और अन्य श्रेणियों के अभ्यर्थियों के लिए आरक्षण भर्ती के समय प्रवृत्त सरकारी आदेशों के अनुसार किया जायेगा।

(3) उप नियम (1) के प्रयोजनार्थ, सरकार एक चयन समिति का गठन करेगी और आयोग से परामर्श करना आवश्यक न होगा।

(4) स्थानीय निकाय निदेशक अभ्यर्थियों की एक पात्रता सूची उस ज्येष्ठता क्रम में तैयार करेंगे जैसा कि उनकी तदर्थ नियुक्ति के आदेश के दिनांक से अवधारित हो, और यदि दो या अधिक व्यक्ति एक साथ नियुक्त किये जायें तो उस क्रम में तैयार करेंगे, जिस क्रम में उनके नाम उक्त नियुक्ति के आदेश से क्रमबद्ध किये गये हों। सूची को अभ्यर्थियों की चरित्र पंजियों और उनके सम्बन्ध में ऐसे अन्य अभिलेखों सहित, जो उनकी उपयुक्तता को निर्धारित करने के लिए आवश्यक समझा जाये, चयन समिति के समक्ष रखा जायेगा।

(5) चयन समिति अभ्यर्थियों के मामलों पर उप नियम (4) में निर्दिष्ट उनके अभिलेखों के आधार पर विचार करेगी।

(6) चयन समिति चयन किये गये अभ्यर्थियों की एक सूची तैयार करेगी, सूची के नाम ज्येष्ठता-क्रम में रखे जायेंगे और वह उसे सरकार और स्थानीय निकाय निदेशक को भेजेगी।

(7) राज्य सरकार या स्थानीय निदेशक इस नियम के उपनियम (2) और नियम 6 के उप नियम (1) के उपबन्धों के अधीन रहते हुए, इस नियम के उप नियम (6) के अधीन तैयार की गई सूची से नियुक्तियाँ उस क्रम में करेंगे जिस क्रम में उनके नाम उक्त सूची में रखे गये हों।

(8) उप नियम (7) के अधीन की गई नियुक्तियाँ नियम-21 में दिये गये सुसंगत उपबन्धों के अधीन की गई समझी जायेंगी।

(9) इस नियम के अधीन नियुक्त कोई व्यक्ति इस नियम के अनुसार चयन के पश्चात केवल नियुक्ति के आदेश के दिनांक से ज्येष्ठता का हकदार होगा और सभी मामलों में उसे इस नियम के अधीन उसकी नियुक्ति के पूर्व इस नियमावली के भाग -5 में सीधी भर्ती के लिए निहित प्रक्रिया के अनुसार नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के नीचे रखा जायेगा।

(10) यदि दो या अधिक व्यक्ति इस नियम के अधीन एक साथ नियुक्त किये जायें तो उनकी परस्पर ज्येष्ठता नियुक्ति के आदेश में उल्लिखित क्रम में अवधारित की जायेगी।

(11) ऐसे व्यक्ति की सेवा जो तदर्थ आधार पर नियुक्त किया गया हो और जो उपयुक्त न पाया जाये या जिसका मामला इस नियम के उपनियम (1) के अधीन न आता हो, तत्काल समाप्त कर दी जायेगी और ऐसी समाप्ति पर वह एक मास का वेतन पाने का हकदार होगा। "

5. Admittedly petitioner has been appointed as adhoc Junior Engineer by way of direct recruitment prior to 31st June, 1998. It is also not disputed that petitioner possessed requisite qualification for appointment at the time of his initial appointment. He had also completed three years and was in employment on the date when Rule 21-A was introduced in the Rules of 1966. The respondents were, therefore, required to consider petitioner's claim for regularization on the date Rule 21-A got introduced in the Rules of 1966. For any delay caused in consideration of petitioner's claim cannot be allowed to adversely affect the petitioner. Even if the consideration for regularization by the Selection Committee took place later in point of time, yet it would have to relate back to the date of introduction of Rule 21-A in the Rules of 1966. Any other interpretation would lead to an arbitrary situation, inasmuch as similarly placed adhoc employees, entitled to regularization as per Rule 21-A would be placed in the seniority list based upon a fortuitous circumstance i.e. the date of consideration of their claim for regularization. This is what exactly has happened, otherwise. Petitioner's juniors were considered for regularization on earlier dates and have been extended benefit of seniority/pension etc. but equal treatment has been denied to the petitioner, which is wholly arbitrary.

6. It is not in issue that various other persons have been granted benefit of regularization from the date of initial appointment on adhoc basis and reference is made to the judgment of Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.11198 (S/S) of 2018 (Virendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 12.7.2018. Attention of the Court has also been invited to an order passed by the State Government on 7th August, 2020, whereby benefit of regularization has been granted to one Virendra Kumar Srivastava and others from the date of their initial appointment on adhoc basis.

7. In light of the deliberations and discussions aforesaid this Court is of the considered view that benefit of regularization could not have been denied to petitioner from the date of introduction of Rule 21-A in the Rules of 1966 i.e. 10.4.2003 and he was otherwise eligible for such purposes. Mere delay in consideration of petitioner's regularization, if is allowed to stand, would amount to putting premium on the inaction of respondents which would clearly be arbitrary and unsustainable.

8. This writ petition, therefore, is disposed of with the direction upon the second respondent to consider petitioner's regularization from the date of introduction of Rule 21-A in the Rules of 1966 i.e. 10.4.2003. Respondents, therefore, are also commanded to consider grant of notional seniority to petitioner w.e.f. 10.4.2003 in the cadre. Petitioner's claim for pension and other retiral benefits would also be considered treating his date of entry into service as 10.4.2003. A fresh order in terms of above direction would be passed within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The order impugned in the writ petition shall remain subject to the fresh orders to be passed by the Director concerned. All consequential benefits would be granted to petitioner without any further loss of time.