Allahabad High Court
Ram Bahadur Maurya vs Honble High Court Of Judicature At ... on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 24 of 2023
Appellant :- Ram Bahadur Maurya
Respondent :- Honble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru. Registrar General , And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd Wajid Irfan,Mohd. Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Mohd. Wajid Irfan and Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vijay Dixit, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and filed memo of appearance, which is taken on record.
2. By means of the instant special appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 the appellant challenges an order dated 25.11.2022, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No.2726 of 2001.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had initially been appointed on the post of Copyist on daily wages by means of an order dated 27.04.1985. By means of an order dated 18.02.1987, the petitioner was appointed on the aforesaid post on ad-hoc basis and the petitioner's services were terminated by means of an order dated 03.08.2007 for the reason that work in Faizabad District Court had reduced and, therefore, his service were not required.
4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5909 (S/S) of 1987 challenging the termination of his services. By means of an order dated 14.01.1988 the petitioner was again appointed on the aforesaid post for a period up to 29.02.1988. The petitioner was again appointed on ad-hoc basis on 28.02.1989 by means of an order dated 02.06.1988 and yet again he was appointed by means of an order dated 13.03.1989 for a period up to 28.02.1990. The petitioner was granted appointment for limited periods in the like manner on subsequent occasion also.
5. On 08.01.1991, the Deputy Secretary of Department of Justice, Government of U.P. has sent a letter to the Registrar of Hon'ble High Court and to the District Courts, stating that appointment had been made on 307 posts of Copyists on ad-hoc basis and subsequently persons have been granted regular appointment on the basis of regular selection or regularization. In case any break has occurred in service of such persons the benefit of continuity of service may be granted by adjusting earned leave and other permissible leaves e.g. extraordinary leave (without salary).
6. Thereafter, the District Judge has appointed the petitioner on ad-hoc basis for a period up to 31.08.1991.
7. The petitioner submitted a representation claiming that he should be treated to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from his initial appointment in the year 1987 and all consequential benefits be granted to him.
8. The representation was rejected by means of an order dated 25.08.1993. He gave numerous other representations, claiming continuity of service and payment of regular pay scale and ultimately he filed Writ-A No.2726 of 2001, challenging the order rejecting his representations and claiming for issuance of a writ of mandamus for considering regularization of his services. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by Hon'ble Single Judge holding that the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989 provides regularization of persons who were in service on 18.02.1987 and as the petitioner had been appointed on the post after the cut-off date, there was no illegality in rejecting the petitioner's claim and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.
9. While seeking to challenge the order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that several other similarly situated persons have been regularized from the initial date of appointment made on ad-hoc basis with effect from 02.09.1986 and they have been granted consequential benefits also and the petitioner has been discriminated by not extending the same benefit to him.
10. Per contra, Mr. Vijay Dixit, learned counsel representing the Hon'ble High Court has submitted that the matter of five ad-hoc employees was referred to a Committee constituted by the Hon'ble High Court and the Committee recommended regularization of services to three employees, who had been appointed prior to 01.01.1986. The services of rest two persons, including the petitioner could not be regularized as they had been appointed after the cut-off date.
11. The U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 provides that regularization of ad-hoc appointments of persons who were directly appointed on ad-hoc basis before 01.01.1977 and were continuing in service, as such, on the date of commencement of the Rules. By an amendment to the aforesaid Rules in the year 1984, the cut-off date was changed to 01.05.1983 and thereafter by means of U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989, the aforesaid cut-off date was changed to October 1, 1986.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner's initial appointment on ad-hoc basis was made on 18.02.1987 i.e. after the cut-off date October 1, 1986 mentioned in the Second Amendment Rules, 1989. Therefore, the petitioner's services were not entitled to be regularized under the aforesaid Rules.The other three persons, whose services have been regularized, had been appointed prior to October 1, 1986 and, therefore, the petitioner's case is not similar to that of three persons.
13. We are in agreement with the view taken by Hon'ble Single Judge that the petitioner having been appointed after the cut-off date mentioned in Second Amendment Rules, 1989, he was not entitled to claim regularization of services under the aforesaid Rules and, therefore, his representation was rightly rejected.
14. We find no good ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge. The special appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
15. However, there will be no order as to the costs.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 23.1.2023
Ram.
