Roop Lal Verma And 4 Others vs State Of U.P Thru. The Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10910 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4597 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Roop Lal Verma And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. The Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivam Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri V.K. Bajpayee, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court assailing the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by Environment and Forest thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioners for being regularized.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners were appointed as Seasonal/Daily Wager in the Forest Department under the Conservator of Forest Bareily on 09.02.1991, 17.11,1989, 18.12.1987 and 21.12.1988.

4. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 after successful completion of tenure of their services superannuatd in 2018, petitioner No. 3 in 2017 while petitioner No. 5 is still in service.

5. With regard to regularization on Group-C and Group-D employees, there was a dispute as they were not being regularised therefore various writ petitions were filed before this Court.

6. In Writ Petition No. 927 (SS) of 2002, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization by means of judgment dated 15.03.2010. The claim of the petitioners for regularisation was considered and rejected by order dated 05.06.2010 which order was again assailed in another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 4621 (SS) of 2010.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners while assailing the impugned order has submitted that on the previous occasion, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of Writ Petition no. 4302 (SS) of 2012 which was decided on 07.02.2018 and this Court had given a categorical finding that the petitioners were duly entitled to be regularised. The relevant portion of the judgement is quoted hereinunder:-

"Petitioners have filed present writ petition challenging the order dated 14.3.2012 whereby, their representation for regularization has been rejected. Petitioners have claimed that they are working as daily wagers and were entitled for regularization on the post of Seasonal Nikasi Munshi (now merged with and known as Forester).

Learned counsel for petitioners strongly argued that the petitioners are qualified as well as they are daily wagers and, therefore, their representation has been wrongly rejected by the impugned order. During the argument, learned counsel for petitioners drew attention of this Court to para-2 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners which reads as follows:-

"2. That 3 similarly situated Seasonal Nikasi Munshi have been regularized as Forester under the relevant regularization Rules, 1998 pertaining to Class-III daily wagers, vide an order dated 22.4.2013, by the Conservator, Wildlife (Eastern) Circle, Gonda. The names of the said seasonal Nikasi Munshi, now Forester, are Ram Sumiran, Jagdish Singh and Dukhram Yadav. Besides, through information procured through RTI, on 6.6.2015, the petitioner has learnt that the qualification of the said persons on the date of regularization was High School, Intermediate and Intermediate respectively. True copies of the Regularization order dated 22.4.2003 and the letter dated 6.6.2015, detailing the qualification and post held by the persons concerned, prior to regularization, are being annexed cumulatively as Annexure no.SA-1 to this supplementary affidavit."

Respondents were required to file reply to the said affidavit which they have filed and in the said reply, the statement made in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner, could not be disputed by the respondents. In view thereof, it is apparent that the petitioners are entitled for the benefits which are given to the persons referred to in para-2 aforesaid.

In view thereof, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the grievance of petitioners would be sufficiently met in case their representation is again considered and decided by the O.P. No.1, Principal Secretary, Forest Department, State of U.P.

In view of aforesaid, the petitioners are permitted to move fresh representation to the O.P. No.1 within three weeks from today annexing a certified copy of this order as well as a copy of the petition along with its annexures. In case the petitioners move the representation, the same shall be considered and decided by the O.P. No.1 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

The writ petition is disposed of."

8. The respondents considering the case of the petitioners as per the directions of this Court dated 07.02.2018 had rejected the case of the petitioners for regularisation by means of order dated 25.10.2018 on the ground that petitioners are not covered under the regularisation rules as they are seasonal employees.

9. The petitioners again approached this Court in contempt jurisdiction alleging non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 07.02.2018 in Contempt No. 1695 of 2018. The Contempt Court looked into the judgment passed by this Court and by means of order dated 02.11.2018 was of the considered opinion that once a finding has been recorded by this Court with regard to entitlement of the petitioners and also considering the fact that similarly situated persons had already been given benefit of regularisation then the respondents cannot sit over the judgment passed by writ court hold that the petitioners are not entitled for regularisation. The observations and findings of this Court are as follows:-

"Consequently, the entitlement of the petitioners for being given similar benefit as given to Ram Sumiran, Jagdish Singh and Dukhram Yadav was settled beyond doubt by the writ Court.

It is not the case of the respondent-contemner that a special appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the writ Court. However, the respondent-contemner has sat over the order and has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioners by distinguishing the case of aforesaid three Seasonal Nikasi Munshi on various grounds.

In the opinion of the Court once the writ Court has held the petitioners as being entitled for the benefits as given to the aforesaid three persons and the order passed by the writ Court having attained finality, it would not lie with the respondents to now sit over the judgment passed by the writ Court and hold that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefits as given to the aforesaid three persons while passing the order dated 25.10.2018.

Upon being confronted with the aforesaid facts, Sri Mayankar Singh, learned Standing Counsel prays that the respondent-contemner may be allowed to re-visit the order and pass a fresh order in letter and spirit of the order passed by the writ Court dated 07.02.2018.

Time prayed for is allowed. List after four weeks as fresh.

In case the compliance of the order passed by the writ Court is not made in letter and spirit then the Court may consider to pass suitable orders against the respondent-contemner."

10. In compliance of the order of the Contempt Court dated 02.11.2018, the respondents again rejected the regularisation of the petitioners by means of order dated 02.03.2019 again reiterating that the petitioners are seasonal workers and therefore they are not covered by the Regularisation Rules, 2016.

11. The order of rejection dated 02.03.2019 was again assailed by the petitioners before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 14516 (SS) of 2019 where this Court has considered the entire conspectus of the case and the earlier orders passed by this Court and quashed the order dated 02.03.2019 and gave liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation and directed the respondents to pass necessary orders within three weeks.

12. While allowing the said writ petition, this Court had recorded a finding that "considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the office memo dated 02.03.2019 has not been passed properly inasmuch as the factual and legal matrix of the issue in question has not been considered properly and there is an error apparent on the fact of the office memo dated 02.03.2019. Therefore, the said impugned order is liable to be quashed at the admission stage. Accordingly, the office memo dated 02.03.2019 is hereby quashed"

13. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the respondents themselves have regularised similarly situated persons by means of order dated 22.04.2003. With regard to 08 persons, by means of information have been received under the Right of Information Act, it was disclosed that the persons regularised by means of order dated 22.04.2003 were working on the post of Season Nikasi Munshi. It is noticed that these facts have been duly considered by this Court in its previous order dated 07.02.2018 as well as order dated 23.03.2019 holding that the petitioners are duly entitled for being granted parity along with the other similarly situated persons whose services have been regularised by the respondents themselves.

14. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand while opposing the writ petition has submitted that the case of the petitioners for regularisation cannot be considered in light of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Wroking 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, where in Rule 2 of the said Rules would not apply for regularisation of Seasonal Collection Amin/Seasonal Peon.

15. It is noticed that this Court had previously recorded a finding that the petitioners are duly eligible for regularisation and while considering the said fact they were persuaded by the orders passed by the respondents themselves regularising the services of similarly situated persons who are working on seasonal basis. The respondents cannot grant benefit in favour of a particular set of individual while refusing with regard to the petitioners and petitioners cannot be discriminated in the matter of regularisation. The petitioners have further submitted that the respondents themselves are regularly passing orders of regularisation with regard to the persons who were working on seasonal basis and to that extent had perused an order dated 30.12.2021 where order for regularisation has been passed with regard to one Janardhan Lal Mishra on 30.12.2021.Indisputably, the said government servant was also working on seasonal basis.

16. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the said order has been passed in compliance of the orders passed by writ court.

17. It has further been submitted that on 08.02.2020, six persons have been regularised who were working on daily/seasonal Nikasi Munshi which order has been annexed at page No. 56 of the writ petition. It is noticed that the said order has also been passed after coming into force of the Regularisation Rules, 2016.

18. Learned Standing Counsel has informed that the said order has also been passed in compliance of the orders of the writ court.

19. Considering the aforesaid submission, it is noticed that the petitioners have been canvassing and pleading their case for regularisation before this Court for last number of years and had approached this Court on three earlier occasions. On all the occasions, this Court had returned a finding that the petitioners are duly entitled and eligible for being regularized. It is also noticed that persons similarly situated, their services have also been regularised and despite repeated direction of this Court to the respondents to consider the case along with similarly situated candidates, the respondents are continuously rejecting the representation of the petitioners solely on the ground that petitioners were ineligible in the most illegal and arbitrary and in total disregard of the findings recorded by this Court. This Court had clearly recorded a finding while passing the order dated 23.05.2019 that "admittedly judicial finding has come in respect of entitlement for the petitioners for regularisation, the authority may not circumvent the said judicial finding for any other reason."

20. It is noticed that in fact the respondents are over looking the findings of the writ court and repeatedly rejecting the representations for regularization made by the petitioners. This Court is of the considered view that petitioners are entitled to be regularised and hence it is only that necessary orders may be passed for which suitable directions are given to the respondents.

21. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pass necessary orders with regard to regularisation of the petitioners within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. While passing the said order, respondent No. 2 shall consider the previous judgments of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4302/2012, order dated 07.02.2018 as well as Writ Petition No. 1456 /2019 judgment dated 23.05.2019 and also the said orders will be passed for regularisaton of the petitioners from the date similarly situated persons have been regularised.

22. The instructions produced by learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 23.8.2022

Ravi/