Allahabad High Court
Hanuman Prasad Verma And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest ... on 21 November, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77980
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5441 of 2023
Petitioner :- Hanuman Prasad Verma And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Madhav Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Madhav Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.
2. The controversy raised by the petitioner, the present writ petition is with regard to his regularization on the post of Forester (Van Daroga) in the U.P. Forest Department and also for grant of post retiral benefits pursuant to regularization of his services on the post of Forester/Van Daroga. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially engaged as Seasonal Export Moharrir in 1997 and subsequently in 2001 his services have merged on the post of Forester (Van Daroga) in the pay scale of 3050-4590. As the petitioner had been working for a substantial length of time, the petitioner alongwith number of other persons has approached the authorities for consideration of the case for regularization but no orders have been passed by the respondents and therefore some employees had approached this Court for filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 7913 (S/S) of 1990, which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 21.03.2002, the respondents were directed to consider the case of such daily wage employees for regularization as well as for payment of regular pay scale. The petitioner also filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 7942 (S/S) of 2005 and benefit of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2002 was extended in the case of the petitioner also.
3. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the opposite parties had issued an order dated 16.11.2013 granting the pay scale of Forester/Van Daroga carrying the pay scale of 4000-6000 to the petitioner with annual increment.
4. The claim of the petitioner for regularization was also made before the respondents in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group C Post (Outside the Purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998, it was contended by the petitioner that the number of junior persons have been duly considered and the services were regularized but the case of the petitioner was not considered, he has further stated that in similar circumstances one Kashiram Yadav who had also not been given the benefit of regularization and had filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 18279 (S/S) of 2017 and by means of judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 this Court had directed the respondents respondents to consider his case for regularization.
5. In compliance of the directions of this Court dated 07.08.2019, the Conservator of Forest, Devipatan Circle, U.P. Gonda by means of order dated 17.03.2020 regularized his services of Kashiram Yadav, after services are regularized, he has also been paid his post retiral dues. The petitioner also claim the benefit granted to Kashiram Yadav and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 5894 of 2022 was also allowed and is order rejecting, his regularization was set aside and the respondents were directed to consider case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Court in the case of Kashiram Yadav. By means of impugned order dated 27.04.2023 the claim of the petitioner were regularization, has been rejected while rejecting the claim of the petitioner a comparison chart has been also considered in relation to the service of the petitioner having provided alongwith the list of dates in the case of Kashiram Yadav.
6. A comparison of both the charts indicates that the petitioner was also appointed on daily wages in March, 1982 and worked as such till May, 2002 while Kashiram Yadav had also worked in similar capacity from May, 1973 till 2001 as Seasonal Export Moharrir. The claim of the petitioner as well as Kashiram Yadav was duly considered and rejected for regularization. It seems that there is no difference in the case of the petitioner or Kashiram Yadav but erroneously a distinction has been sought to be created in the service of the petitioner as well as Kashiram Yadav to deny the benefit of regularization to the petitioner. While considering the case of Kashiram Yadav this Court has gone into the provisions of the regularization Rules of 2001 and found that the petitioner therein was fully entitled to be considered and regularized inasmuch as they fall within the purview of the cut-off date prescribed therein for regularization of the services.
7. Accordingly, we do not find the ground taken by the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization as tenable and accordingly the impugned order cannot be sustained inasmuch as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Kashiram Yadav and the petitioner having worked continuously since 1982 till 31.08.2015 which is for more than three decades, we do not find that the case of the petitioner for regularization to have been rejected for passing the impugned order.
8. In the light of above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside, the respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in the light of observations made hereinabove considering his case for regularization from the date of eligibility. After appropriate orders of regularization have passed, the respondents are also directed to consider the grant of post retiral dues to the petitioner. Let the said exercise be conducted expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the appropriate authority.
(Alok Mathur,J.)
Order Date :- 21.11.2024
Satish
