Allahabad High Court
Jagdeesh Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. ... on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:36816-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 332 of 2023
Appellant :- Jagdeesh Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Shukla,Awantika Sharma,Brijendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for appellants-petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, learned counsel representing the State-respondents.
2. Having regard to the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay and having heard learned counsel for parties, we are satisfied that delay has sufficiently been explained.
3. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.
4. The appellants-petitioners before us in this special appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court are questioning the order dated 16.11.2022, passed by learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No.1114 of 2022 has been dismissed and the prayer made in the writ petition for issuing a direction to appoint the appellants-petitioners against Class-IV posts in different departments in the State of U.P. has been declined.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners is that the appellants-petitioners had worked in different capacities on fixed honorarium basis from the year 1989-2001 under the scheme known as 'Non Formal Education of the Central Government' which had been merged in the year 2001 in the scheme now known as 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan'. Further case set up by the appellants-petitioners is that Non Formal Education Scheme came to an end w.e.f. 01.04.2001 as per Government Order dated 24.03.2001 and, therefore, they are entitled for absorption in other government departments. It has been argued by learned counsel for appellants-petitioners that Hon'ble High Court of Patna has directed for rehabilitation of such employees and the SLP filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for appellants-petitioners has also relied upon an order dated 21.04.2022, passed by this Court in Writ-A No.38477 of 2016 whereby direction has been issued to the State Government to formulate policy for absorption of the appellants-petitioners of the said writ petition within six months, in government departments.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it has been argued by Sri Shukla that learned Single Judge has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case in correct perspective which renders the order under appeal liable to be set aside.
7. Learned State counsel has argued that the scheme in which appellants-petitioners are said to have worked admittedly came to an end on 01.04.2001 and the appellants-petitioners approached this Court for absorption in government departments after 21 years and hence, learned Single Judge has rightly declined the prayers made in this petition. Submission, thus, is that the special appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties and have also perused the record available before us on this special appeal.
9. It is not in dispute that the scheme known as "Non Formal Education of Central Government", under which the appellants-petitioners had worked for some period, had come to an end w.e.f. 01.04.2001. It is also not in dispute that Hon'ble High Court of Patna had given certain directions for absorption of such employees working in the State of Bihar and against the said judgment of High Court of Patna, SLP preferred by the State of Bihar was dismissed but thereafter, on an application for modification, it was provided that the benefit of the said order in the case of State of Bihar shall be available only to those who had approached the Court.
10. Even otherwise, the appellants-petitioners were engaged in a scheme. It is settled law that right of continuance of any employee engaged under scheme comes to an end once the scheme also gets terminated. In other words, the continuance of employees employed in a scheme is co-terminus with the scheme itself.
11. In this case scheme was closed way back on 01.04.2001. Even if, under some scheme or rule or policy, certain employees, who were earlier working in Non Formal Education Scheme, were absorbed either Shiksha Mitra or in any other capacity in the Government Departments. However, the claim put forth by the appellants-petitioners is so stale and at this juncture that the same cannot be considered.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners has not brought on record any policy or rule or regulation of the State Government where any provision for absorption of these employees was to be made.
13. As observed above, even if, there exists any provision or policy of the State Government, approaching the Court after lapse of a period of 21 years from the date of closer of scheme for absorption in government job, in our opinion, is a claim which cannot be considered at this juncture.
14. Thus, in our opinion, learned Single Judge has taken a correct view of the matter.
15. Resultantly, this special appeal is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
Renu/-
