Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 11 November, 2024
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176507
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17022 of 2024
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard Sri Amar Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 namely Regional Level Regularisation Committee, through its Chairman/Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi is under challenge in the present writ petition by which the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1996 as Assistant Teacher and since then he is working continuously and after attaining the age of superannuation on 31st March, 2024, the petitioner has retired on 31st March, 2024. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed in complete violation of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 21492 of 2023) dated 30.09.2024 in which a specific direction has been given by this Court in paragraph -149 of the judgment that the Regional Regularization Committee shall accord hearing to all the candidates whose claim is under consideration for regularization. It is further observe that Committee shall ask all the Management Committee of the Institution to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization. Paragraph-149 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-
"149. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the matters which have been remitted back to the Regularization Committee shall be considered in the light of the following directions:
(i) The Regional Regularization Committee shall accord fresh consideration in all remitted matters within a period of six weeks from the date of remand.
(ii) As far as possible, the Regional Regularization Committee shall accord hearing to all the candidates whose claim is under consideration for regularization.
(iii) The Committee shall ask all the Management Committees of the Institution to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization of the candidates within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. In case the documents are not provided by the Management Committees, the Regularization Committee shall proceed against the institution in question under the provisions of Act of 1921.
(iv) The Regularization Committee shall further accord due consideration to provision of Act of 1982 while considering the claim for regularization especially for all those candidates whose case fall under Sections 33-B, 33-C, 33-F, and 33-G.
(v) It is further provided that in view of clarification of Government Order dated 26.09.2024, all the candidates whose matters are under consideration before the Regional Regularization Committee, shall be paid their salary which has been stopped pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2023 within a period as prescribed in the clarification order dated 26.09.2024, till their claims are finally decided.
(vi) Further all the candidates whose claim has not been decided by the Regularization Committee shall be permitted to work.
vii) It is clarified that in all those cases where the claim for regularization was rejected and the writ petition has been allowed by this Court and the matter has been remitted back for fresh consideration, those candidates shall be entitled for their entire salary till their claim is decided afresh."
4. It is argued that taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, a Government Order dated 04.10.2024 was also issued by the State-Government.
5. In this view of the matter, it is argued that since the order impugned has been passed by the Regularization Committee in violation of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava (Supra) as well as the Government Order and the same should be quashed. It is argued that though the petitioner is working continuously but his salary is not being paid and prays that the arrears of salary be also paid to him.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. While going through the order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 namely Regional Level Regularisation Committee, through its Chairman/Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that neither any opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner nor the Management Committee of the Institution was directed to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization of the petitioner.
8. This fact is also admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
9. In this view of the matter, the order dated dated 28.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 namely Regional Level Regularisation Committee, through its Chairman/Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, specially in terms of the direction given by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava (Supra) as well as Government Order dated 04.10.2024 within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2024
Arti
