Chandra Sen And 23 Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2396 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
                                                                                                     RESERVED ON 31.3.2022
 
                                                                                                     DELIVERED ON 9.5.2022
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57482 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Chandra Sen And 23 Ors.
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And Anr.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Dhar Shukla,Jitendra Narain Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Manoj Kumar Singh,Narendra Pratap Singh,Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Sri R.K. Shukla and Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed praying for direction to the respondents to frame a policy/viable scheme in respect of the petitioners, who are working as casual labourers since 1997 in department of National Open School, of the Central Government.

The brief facts of the petition are that petitioners were engaged in National Open School on 2.1.1997, except petitioner no.3, Sita Ram, who was engaged in 1996.They were disengaged from the service and thereafter they were re-engaged. There is a seniority list of the petitioners maintained by the respondent department. Their names were sponsored through employment exchange and therefore it cannot be said that they were engaged illegally from back door. They have prayed that keeping in view of their long working in the department known as National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) formerly known as National Open School prior to 2002.The petitioners have prayed for direction to the respondents to frame some scheme for their regularisation as one time measure.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2,Chairman, National Institute of Open Schooling, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. wherein it has been stated that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC ,1 petitioners were neither regularised on sanctioned posts nor there were vacancy nor they underwent any selection process nor they were selected by calling all eligible candidates through inter-se-competition and therefore they are not entitled to regularisation in service.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the paragraph 53 of the judgement of Uma Devi (supra) and has submitted that petitioners have not lost their right for consideration for regularisation in service because the six months period provided in paragraph-53 of the aforesaid judgement has expired. He has submitted that in the case of Uma Devi(Supra), it was clearly provided that irregular nor illegal appointment shall be regularised. Petitioners' case has never been considered as one time measure for regularisation. Their long working shows that there is requirement of work in the department but the petitioners are not being regularised nor given the benefit of regularisation for last about 25 years.

In view of the above consideration the respondents are directed to consider the regularisation of the petitioners in service by framing policy /scheme as one time measure within period of four months from today.

The writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 9.5.2022

Atul kr. sri.