Allahabad High Court
Ram Nath vs State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Forest Deptt ... on 4 January, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:805
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17415 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ram Nath
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Forest Deptt Lko And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as far as prayer no. (b) is concerned, the same has become infructuous as the petitioner has started getting the minimum of the pay scale and now the petitioner is pressing for issuing direction to the respondents to regularize his services on Group 'D' post by deciding the representation preferred by him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Group 'D' daily wage employee prior to 29.06.1991 and he was fully eligible for regularization under U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 and at the time the services of juniors to the petitioner have been regularized, namely, Nanoo (at serial no.13), Sohan (at serial no.9), Dhode (at serial no.25), Chedda (at serial no.27 and Jhabbar (at serial no.12), in compliance of the judgment passed in their favour. It is not out of place to mention here that petitioner was at serial no.1 in the said list.
3. It is further submitted that in the supplementary counter affidavit a seniority list has been enclosed by the respondents in which the petitioner finds place at serial no.6 whereas services of the persons, namely, Jhabbar, who is at serial no.15 and Chedda, who is at serial no.18, have been regularized vide order dated 02.03.2020.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a Committee was constituted by the department to consider the case of the petitioner. The Committee has reported that the petitioner was admittedly working prior to 29.06.1991 but his services cannot be regularized as he has not worked continuously till December, 2001. Though it is admitted that the petitioner is still working.
5. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a detailed chart of continuous functioning of the petitioner which fact has not been disputed and also relied upon judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 8322 (S/S) of 2011, Nanmoon and others vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Janardan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) ADJ 60, a copy of which has been filed as annexure no.2 to the supplementary affidavit. He has also stated that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment.
6. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that it is an admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner has been working since prior to 29.06.1991 and he is still working. The services of the persons junior to the petitioner have been regularized in compliance of the order passed by this Court.
7. Learned Standing Counsel is also unable to dispute the judgment/order dated 14.12.2015 relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Nanmoon and others (supra).
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give the benefit of the ratio of the judgment and principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months from a date certified copy of this order is produced. The Registry is directed to issue a certified copy of the order rendered in the case of Janardan Yadav (supra).
9. In peculiar circumstances of the case as also the fact that services of so many persons junior to the petitioners as per the admitted seniority list of the respondents have been regularized in compliance of the judgment and order of this Court by creating a supernumerary post, it is also made clear that in case there is no vacancy with the respondents, services of the petitioner shall not be terminated in view of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules.
Order Date :- 4.1.2024
Renu/-
