Allahabad High Court
Jhagru vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 24 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5289 of 2019
Petitioner :- Jhagru
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Horticulture Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Shailendra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Sarojani Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 16.10.2017 whereby the regularization of the petitioner on the post of Mali (Group-D) has been cancelled.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Mali (Group-D) in the month of March, 1991 on daily wage basis. He is presently working as Mali in Rajkiya Paudhshala, Tilakpur, District-Balrampur on daily wages.
4. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.19352 (S/S) of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2017, which would read as under:-
"It is stated that petitioner is continuously working as Mali in the department concerned in State of U.P. since the year 1991. Claim of the petitioner is that he is liable to be considered for regularization in accordance with the Rules of regularization framed in the year 2016, notified on 12th September, 2016. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.10738 of 2017, which has been disposed of on 17.5.2017 by following orders:-
"Heard.
The petitioners herein claim to be working as Daily Wager in the Horticulture and Food Processing Department of the Government U.P. They seek a right of consideration for regularization of their services in terms of the recent Rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working 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, however, on a perusal of the said Rules this Court finds that in Rule 2 there is a stipulation that these Rules shall not apply for regularization of person/persons engaged/employed/deployed for seasonal work in Horticulture Department etc.
The petitioners claim that they are continuously working since their initial engagement more than 25 years ago and the work being performed by them is of perennial nature, and not seasonal, however, as this is a factual issue, therefore, it would have to be looked into by the concerned official in the light of the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Rules 2016. In these circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party no.4 to verify the claim of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the aforesaid Rules 2016 after first inquiring the matter in the light of Rule 2 thereof, as noted hereinabove. If any decision in this regard is to be taken at some higher level, he shall forward the matter to the said level and the officer concerned shall act accordingly.
Let this exercise be completed within 3 months. Based on such exercise if it is found that the petitioners are not seasonal workers, their claim shall be considered for regularization and considering the long services rendered by them, if it is so, i.e. of more than 25 years, they would be paid the minimum of the pay-scale in keeping with paragraph 55 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case, in accordance with law, till such consideration for regularization.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms."
Petitioner's claim be also considered in light of the directions aforesaid. Writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms."
5. In compliance of the direction issued by this Court vide order 23.08.2017, petitioner's representation for regularization has been considered in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working 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 (hereinafter referred to as "Regularization Rules, 2016"). Rule 6(1) of Regularization Rules, 2016 provide for regularization of an employee who has been working on 31.12.2001 as a daily wager or on Work Charge or on Contract basis, he would continue on the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, 2016.
6. The impugned order dated 16.10.2017 would disclose that the petitioner remained absent from 1999 to 2001, from 2002 to 2005 and from 2010 to 2015. Thus, the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility conditions for regularization as per the provisions of Regularization Rules, 2016. It has been further said that the petitioner earlier also from 1997 to 2003 was not on duty and therefore, he was not working on 31.12.2001 on any post or in any capacity.
7. Considering these facts, since the case of the petitioner did not fall within four corners of the Regularization Rules, 2016, this Court cannot be of any help to the petitioner for any direction to regularize him under the Regularization Rules, 2016 inasmuch as he does not fulfill the eligibility conditions for regularization.
8. In view thereof, I do not find merit and substance in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 24.4.2023
Piyush/-
