Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Paswan vs State Of U.P. Through Chief Secy. ... on 9 December, 2022
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6145 of 2003
Petitioner :- Mahendra Paswan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Chief Secy. Govt. Of U.P. Civil.Sectt.
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.M.Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
List has been revised.
None appears for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State- respondent.
This petition was filed by the petitioner praying for his absorption saying that he is a retrenched employee of U.P. Tyres and Tubes Limited and his retrenchment certificate dated 10.12.1995 has also been filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel has referred to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.771 (SB) of 2014 [Virendra Pandey vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Industrial Development, Lucknow and Another] where the Court has considered the U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporation in the Government Service Rules, 1991' and the order issued for rescission of such rules in 2003 and litigation arising out of such Rescission Rules, 2003 and has also considered that the State Legislature to avoid further litigation had promulgated U.P. Act No. 26 of 2009, i.e., U.P. Absorption of retrenched employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service (recession of rules), Act 2009 which was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) on 27.8.2009. The Division Bench has considered the statement of object and reasons of the aforesaid Act and Section 3 of the said Rescission Act and dismissed the claim of similarly situated employees by making certain observations.
This Court has perused the judgment and order dated 11.5.2017. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed by the Division Bench are being quoted hereinbelow.
"17. By Section 4, Rules 2003 rescinded with effect from 8th April, 2003. Therefore, Recession Act, 2009 in fact has made entire slate clear which was initiated by Rules, 1991 and ended by Rules, 2003. Still litigation continued, hence State Legislature intervened and both the Rules, from the date of their enforcement, have been rescinded. In respect of Rules, 1991, there is a deeming clause, rescinding the same with effect from 9th May, 1991 but subject to some protection in Section 3.
18. Section 3 (1) (a) of Recession Act, 2009 clearly declares that except those retrenched employees who were absorbed during 9th May, 1991 and 8th April, 2003 all unabsorbed retrenched employees shall have no claim with regard to their absorption under Absorption Rules, 1991 or under any Government Order issued in that regard and their right relating to absorption accrued under absorption Rules shall be deemed terminated. Thus, no protection has been made to a person not already absorbed till 08.4.2003. Section 3 (1) (a) of Recession Act, 2009 clearly bars any right of absorption to any retrenched employee governed by Rules, 1991, if not already absorbed and now no such right survive.
19. There is a little protection provided under Section 3 (2) (c) to retrenched employees who have not been absorbed with regard to relaxations in upper age limit for direct recruitment on Group "C" and "D" posts. Except protection with regard to relaxations in upper age limit given vide Section 3 (2) (c), petitioner or any other person like him, after promulgation of Recession Act, 2009, cannot be allowed any absorption as Absorption Rules, 1991 have been rescinded from the date of their promulgation, i.e., 9th May, 1991, leaving no such right open to the petitioner or any person like him.
20. With regard to relaxations, some are even otherwise provided under different Service Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution, applicable to different departments and a detailed discussion we find in a Single Judge Judgment rendered in Ajit Raizada and others versus State of U.P. and Others, 2011 (6) ADJ 511.
21. In view of the above, Rules 1991 in the light of the present scenario, where State Legislature has rescinded aforesaid Rules vide Rescission Act, 2009 with deeming clause with effect from 9th May, 1991, i.e., the date on which aforesaid Rules came into force and, in that view of the matter, petitioner has no right now to claim absorption nor any direction in the teeth of Recession Act, 2009 can be issued.
22. In these facts and circumstances, the impugned orders, in our view, cannot be faulted and relief as prayed for cannot be granted.
23. In the result, writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed."
This Court finds that after the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Virendra Pandey vs. State of U.P. (supra), the question is no longer res-integra. The case of the petitioner for absorption cannot be considered.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.12.2022
mks
