Allahabad High Court
Sant Kumar And Another vs Sri Amrit Abhijat, Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 7 January, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1091
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3611 of 2024
Applicant :- Sant Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- Sri Amrit Abhijat, Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ghaus Beg
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Namit Sharma
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present contempt petition has been preferred for non-compliance of judgement and order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Writ-A No.9765 of 2023, which is quoted hereinbelow:
"1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate, on behalf of respondents no. 3 to 5 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 to 5.
3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
4. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for following main relief(s):
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 23.8.2023 passed by the Chief Engineer in charge (opposite party No.4) on the basis of decision taken by the selection committee i.e. opposite party no.5 in its meeting held on 24.7.2023, 27.7.2023, 11.8.2023 and 19.8.2023, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider case of the petitioners for regularization of their services on the post of Lighter/Porter (Class-IV) in the Street Light Department, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow in accordance to the provisions as contained under Rule-6 of the U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 as well as in the light of the judgment and order dated 23.09.2022 passed in bunch of special appeals, as contained in Annexure No.17 to the writ petition, forthwith."
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the petitioners were appointed prior to 31.12.2001 and were in service as on 12.09.2016 i.e. at the time of promulgation of Rules namely U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2016). Subsequently their services were terminated on 02.12.2021.
6. It is contended that both the petitioners were appointed on contractual post, as such they are fully covered by the Rules, 2016. Earlier their cases for regularisation had been rejected.
7. It is contended that various contractual persons had approached this Court by filing writ petitions. Various judgements had been passed. Subsequent thereto various special appeals were filed which were decided of which the leading case was Special Appeal No. 96 of 2018 in re: Umesh Chandra Yadav vs State of U.P. and others decided on 23.09.2022, a copy of which is annexure 17 to the petition. While deciding the Special Appeal the Division Bench of this Court passed various directions of which one of the direction was that the case of all the appellants / petitioners shall be considered for regularisation in terms of provisions contained in the Rules 2016.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid judgement, the petitioners staked their claim for consideration of regularisation under Rules 2016. By means of the orders impugned dated 23.08.2023, copies of which are annexure 1 to the petition, the claim for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that in special appeal filed by the petitioners there is no status quo order.
9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have patently erred in passing the orders impugned in as much as the writ court vide judgement passed in the Special Appeal No. 96 of 2018 to the petitioners and thus the respondents are required to consider this aspect of the matter which has not been considered by them while casually rejecting their claim for regularisation solely on the ground that in special appeal there is no status quo order.
10. The further argument is that once the petitioners have already been granted benefit of the judgement of Special Appeal and also the judgement passed in the Special Appeal No. 96 of 2018 dated 23.09.2022 has already been affirmed with dismissal of special leave petition filed by the respondents vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18904 of 2023 in re: Nagar Ayukta Lucknow Nagar Nigam Lucknow U.P. & another vs Umesh Chandra Yadav & others vide the order dated 05.07.2023, a copy of which is annexure 18 to the petition, consequently the respondents have patently erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularisation on the said ground.
11. On the other hand, the aforesaid factual and legal position is fairly admitted by Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 3 to 5.
12. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 23.08.2023, copies of which are annexure 1 to the petition, are quashed. The respondent no. 5 is required to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation under Rules 2016 afresh keeping in view the discussion made above.
15. Let such a consideration be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. "
The case of the applicants was decided in the light of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commissioin) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred as Rules 2016) and order dated 10.10.2024 has been passed rejecting the claim of the applicants by placing reliance upon Rules 5 and 12 of the Rules 2016. The rules have been mentioned in the order dated 10.10.2024 and the reasons have been assigned for rejecting the regularization of the applicants.
After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicants has very fairly submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Writ A No.9765 of 2023, the claim of the applicant has been decided and for all practical purposes, the present contempt application has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the applicant that if they have still any grievance, they may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
As such, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous.
The notice, if any, issued against the respondent is hereby discharged.
The applicant is at liberty to challenge if he has any grievance, as may be permissible under the law.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
S. Kumar
