Hanuman Prasad Verma And Ors. vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1681 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17292 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Hanuman Prasad Verma And Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Pathak,Krishna Madhav Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard Shri K.M. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents-State and perused the record.

The petitioners have approached this Court by means of the instant petition seeking a relief in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 24.07.2019, by which the case of the petitioners for regularization was rejected by the opposite party No.3.

The petitioners were appointed as a Seasonal Moharrir in the office of the opposite parties in the year 1988 on daily wages basis. Later, by an order dated 16.10.2001, the post of Seasonal Moharrir was merged with the post of Forester (Van Daroga) and to that effect the service rules 2001 i.e. Subordinate Forest Rangers, Deputy Rangers and Foresters Services (IVth Amendment) Rules, 2001 were accordingly amended. Certain other daily wagers of the department had also preferred a Writ Petition No.7913 (SS) of 1990 and this Court by means of the order dated 21.03.2002 directed the opposite parties to consider the case of such daily wagers for grant of minimum pay-scale.

In the present case, the case of the petitioners were also considered for providing the minimum pay-scale in light of the judgment dated 17.07.2002 Since, the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C' Post (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 were in force (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1998"), which covered the case of the petitioners for their regularization. However, since it was not considered, therefore, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.8105 (SS) of 2007. This Court by means of the order dated 29.04.2019 disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities concerned to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and also communicate the order to the petitioner. The order is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioners is granted liberty to incorporate the heirs of opposite party no.2 during course of the day.

Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioners on the post of Van Daroga under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C' Post (Outside the Purview of U.P.Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998.

As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioners were appointed on Daily Wage basis prior to 1991 and were working against Class III posts. It has been stated that the petitioners, therefore, were entitled to regularisation in service in terms of the aforesaid Rules of 1998 since they had been appointed prior to the cut off date and were serving as such on the date of notification of the said Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to the contents of the counter affidavit in which it has been admitted that the petitioners were working as Daily Wage Labourers prior to the cut off date, i.e. 29.06.1991. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the opposite parties thereafter regularised Sri Shesh Narain Misra, who was junior to the petitioners. It has also been submitted that, subsequently, the petitioners were also granted the pay-scale of Van Daroga and,therefore, were arbitrarily not considered for regularisation. It has been informed that, subsequently, the petitioners 1 and 3 superannuated while petitioner no.2 has passed away.

At present, learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer for a decision on the aforesaid matter by the competent authority. Therefore, in view of the innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without entering into the merits of the case, Conservator of Forest, Devi Patan Division, District Gonda is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him and to grant consequential benefits in case they are so entitled.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of."

The authorities in pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, constituted a committee and considered the case of the petitioners and by means of the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 rejected the case of the petitioners primarily on the ground that the petitioners had already superannuated and, therefore, their case could not be considered. It is this order, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ground taken in the impugned order is absolutely unsustainable inasmuch as in terms of Rule 4 of the regularization rules, clearly provides that any person, who was directly appointed on a daily wages basis on Group "C" post in the Government before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules shall be entitled to consider. The Rule 4(1)(i) is being quoted for convenient perusal:-

"4. Regularization of daily wages appointment on Group 'C' posts.-(1) Any person who-

(i) was directly appointed on daily wage basis on Group 'C' posts in the Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and"

It has been submitted that these Rules only postulates that the person, who is appointed before the cut of date i.e. June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service on the date of the commencement of the Rules shall be entitled to be considered for regularization.

It has further been submitted that it is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioners were appointed as a daily wager and before the cut of date and was in continuing service at the time when the Rules were promulgated, therefore, the reasons taken in the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularization.

Per contra, learned standing counsel for the State while filing counter affidavit has taken twofold defence. It has been stated that since the petitioners have been superannuated, accordingly, they were not entitled to the benefit of the Rules. Accordingly, they were not found eligible.

The State respondents filed a Special Appeal No.11 of 2020 against the aforesaid order of Writ Court dated 07.08.2019 which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2020. Thus, the order of Writ Court has been uphold by the Appellate Court.

Thus it is not disputed that the Regularization Rules came in the year 1998 and the petitioners have been working since 1988 and they had already preferred his Writ Petition No.8105 (SS) of 2007 which was disposed of with the direction as mentioned hereinabove first.

Since, as per the Rule, the petitioners were liable to be considered which was not done and during pendency of the earlier petition the petitioners superannuated in 2015, thus, this fact shall not be relevant as the right of the petitioners had been crystallized and even the ground of not possessing the qualification is not found sustainable in light of the Rules of 1998, hence, the submissions of the learned standing counsel for the respondents-State does not find favour with this Court.

Thus, in view of the above, it is clear that grounds taken by the respondents-State are completely untenable and the impugned order has been passed ignoring the conditions and prescriptions as contained in the Rules.

This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.07.2019 is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners in light of the observations made in this order with all consequential benefits from the date of their eligibility.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 17.1.2023

Arti/-

[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]