Allahabad High Court
Vijay Pratap vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy. ... on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17267 of 2020
Petitioner :- Vijay Pratap
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 04.8.2018, whereby he is found unfit for regularization under The U.P. 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'), on the ground that though he had worked continuously but there was a break in the years 2002-03 and 2012-13.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U.P.; (2008) 1 UPLBEC 498. While interpreting the Regularization Rules 2001, which carries the same language, the Court held that the Regularization Rules do not provide that the persons should be continuously working each and every working day for regularization. There may be break but the same would not in any manner hamper his regularization. In case he was working on the date on which the Regularization Rules came into force as well as last cut off date on which the person is required to be working.
Suffice would be to refer Paragraph 08 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"8. The said stand is contrary to the Rules and it amounts to reading certain words in Rule 4(1) which is not provided therein by the Rule framing authority. The rule framing authority has not framed the aforesaid Rules in manner as are being read by the respondents. Since the Rules are applicable only to daily wage employees, the Rules framing authority was aware that such employee could not have worked continuously throughout and, therefore, has clearly provided that the engagement must be before 29.6.1991 and he is continuing as such on the date of commencement of the Rules. If a daily wage engagement has been made before 29.6.2001 and was continuing on 21.12.2001, meaning thereby the daily wage engagement remained necessity of the department or the requirement thereof for more than 10 years, for such a person only, the benefit of regularization under 2001 Rules has been provided, and it nowhere requires further that the incumbent must have worked continuously from the date of initial engagement till the commencement of these Rules and to read these words would amount to legislation, which is not permissible in law. While interpreting the statute, it is well settled that neither any word shall be added nor be subtracted but if a plain reading of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the same has to be followed as such. This Court does not find any ambiguity in Rule 4(1) providing as to which kind of persons would be entitled for regularization and it nowhere requires that the incumbent must have worked throughout from the date of initial engagement till the date of commencement of the Rules."
In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was working on both the cut off dates and break in the long service of the petitioner is also a very short break artificial in nature.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.08.2018, cannot stand and is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner as covered by the Regularization Rules and pass appropriate orders for his regularization, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
The writ petition is allowed.
.
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)
Order Date :- 11.1.2023
Arjun/-
