Bibha Kumari And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 9374 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6421 of 2008
 

 
Petitioner :- Bibha Kumari And Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Misra,Gajendra Pratap,Onkar Nath Vishwakarma,P.K. Srivastava,Pramod Kumar Sinha,Praveen Kumar,Sunil
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., ,S.P. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

Heard Shri.Pramod Kumar Sinha,Praveen Kumar,Sunil learned counsel for petitioners and Bushra Mariam for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

"1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.1.2008 passed by the respondent no.4 the District Ghazipur (annexure-13 to the writ petition)

2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the order dated 6.11.06 passed by the respondent no.3 the Adminstrative Judge Ghazipur.

3. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioners against which they were appointed and further pay their salary regularly and continuously.

4. Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

5. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."

This writ petition was filed in the year 2008 and there is no interim order in the present case.

Learned counsel for petitioners have relied upon a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Shukla & Ors, in Civil Appeal No.156/2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. (s).23212/2019 and submitted that petitioners are similarly situated persons, therefore, they are also entitled to similar relief.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners were already terminated way back in the year 2008, therefore, they are not entitled for any benefit granted in Sunil Kumar Shukla (supra) considering its peculiar facts and circumstances.

Undisputedly, petitioners were appointed by a irregular process and therefore were terminated in the year 2008.

In Sunil Kumar Shukla (supra), Supreme Court has taken into consideration the Erstwhile Fast Track/Ex-Cadre Court Rules of 2019 and taking note of statement of Advocate General in regard to regularization of all ad-hoc employees with the cut off date being 31.12.2001 and thereafter Amended Rules, 2021 were framed.

According to Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Fourth Amendment) Rules 2021, employee who were working continuously till promulgation of the Rules would be eligible in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules.

So far as the observation of Supreme Court in regard to the employees whose services have already been terminated was limited with regard to the orders passed on 4.1.2021 in same cases.

Order dated 4.1.2021 refers that the petitioners therein whose services were dispensed with effect from 19.3.2018 and benefit was limited to those employees/petitioners, therein only therefore, benefit of said order cannot be extended to the petitioners who were already terminated way back in the year 2008.

In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and no benefit could be granted to the petitioners on the basis of Sunil Kumar Shukla (supra).

This writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.8.2022

SB