Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... vs Sanjay Prakash on 11 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
In The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad
Sitting At Lucknow
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14798-DB
Court No. - 1
1. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 99 of 2025
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education And Skill Development Lko. And Another
Respondent :- Sanjay Prakash
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Chandola,Abhishek Dwivedi
2. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 100 of 2025
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education And Skill Development Lko. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Rakesh Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Chandola,Abhishek Dwivedi
3. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 101 of 2025
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Cheif Secy. Vocational Education And Skill Development Lko And Anr.
Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Chandola,Abhishek Dwivedi
4. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 102 of 2025
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education And Skill Development Lko. And Another
Respondent :- Ram Dularey Mishra
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Chandola,Abhishek Dwivedi
5. Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 105 of 2025
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education And Skill Development Lko And Another
Respondent :- Hanuman Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Chandola,Abhishek Dwivedi
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. All the above mentioned intra court appeals have been filed with some delay along with an application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit.
2. Reasons have been spelt out in the affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay to which there is no objection.
3. In absence of any objection and the cause shown being sufficient, the applications for condonation of delay are allowed and the delay in filing the present intra court appeals is condoned.
4. We have heard Sri Anil Pratap Singh learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Indrajeet Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Pradeep Chandola and Sri Abhishek Dwivedi learned counsel for the respondents.
5. This bunch of intra court appeals is directed against the judgment/order dated 13.11.2024 rendered by the writ court in a bunch of writ petitions leading case being Writ A No. 9484 of 2023 whereby all the writ petitions seeking benefit of regularization w.e.f. 29.8.2005 have been allowed.
6. Sri Indrajeet Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has ably taken us through the entire background of the case. It is to be noted that the respondents through their Employees Association namely U.P. Rajkiya Audyogik Prashikshan Sansthan Dainik Vetan Karmchari Samiti, Lucknow and another had previously instituted Writ Petition No. 5683(S/S) of 1995 seeking a relief for regularization of their services on Class-III post of Instructor. The writ petition filed by the Employees Union, to which the respondent employees in the respective appeals belong to, was ultimately allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2004.
7. At the relevant point of time as many as 49 Instructors were members of the Employees Union out of whom only 36 being eligible under the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group C Post (outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1998') were regularized in the service on 21.09.2001 while the writ petition filed by the Employees Union was pending. With the regularization of as many as 36 Instructors who were the members of the Union, the grievance of the eligible candidates became infructuous. The writ petition was thereafter pressed by the rest of the employees. The writ petition filed by the Union finally came up before this Court for hearing and it was decided on 16.2.2004 with the following directions :-
"21. Now since the members of the petitioners are working since a long time and come within the scope of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments(on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as amended by the 3rd Amendment dated 20th December, 2001, they are entitled to be considered under those Rules before making any regular appointment.
22. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties commanding them to consider regularization of those members of the petitioner-association who were working on the post of Instructor on daily wage basis prior to 30.6.1998 against the existing vacancies which have come outside the purview of Public Service Commission, before making any regular appointment in accordance with relevant rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the d ate of production of a copy of this order and till they are considered for regularization, they shall be allowed to continue as such".
8. The State Government pursuant to the direction issued by the Writ Court implemented the order subject to outcome of the Special Appeal which was filed against the Writ Court judgment dated 16.02.2004. The order of regularization issued on 29.08.2005 was subject to outcome of Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004 and this is how the services of all the respondents in the respective appeals have come to be rendered thereafter as regular employee.
9. The intra court appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 was also decided on 10.07.2014 without adjudication of the real issue of eligibility under the Regularization Rules of 1998.
10. It is gathered from the Writ Court's judgment that the direction for consideration of all the employees was issued under the Rules applicable to the ad hoc employee. The State Government also failed to take up any clarification by filing a review application which has now been filed at this stage after elapse of more than ten years. The review application so filed has been rejected by this Court by a separate order and on the ground of delay. According to the State, the respondent employees became eligible for regularization under the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group C Post Rules, 2015 whereunder treating their services on daily wage basis, they were considered and were subsequently regularized by the order dated 23.11.2016. The previous order of regularization issued on 29.08.2005 stood superseded for the purposes of service benefits and in this manner the respondent-employees feeling aggrieved filed a Writ Petition No. 20031 of 2021 which was allowed on 13.02.2023. The decision was rendered primarily on the premise that the respondent employees were not granted opportunity before taking away their rights, therefore, the order passed on 09.02.2021 and 23.11.2016 were set aside and liberty was granted to the State for passing a fresh order after due opportunity.
11. It is in this background that the fresh order came to be passed on 20.10.2023 giving rise to the bunch of writ petitions decided by means of the impugned judgment/order dated 13.11.2024. The Writ Court has elaborately considered the background of the case and particularly the fact that all the respondent employees were regularized in service w.e.f. 29.08.2005 without any protest at the end of the State Government and that too, after the judgment/order dated 16.02.2004 was upheld in Special Appeal No. 339 of 2004, though without any adjudication of the real issues.
12. The respondent employees in fact have rendered their services satisfactorily and prolonging the dispute regarding their regularization on any pretext whatsoever is not leading to any irreparable loss to the State Government and the employees also are also at the verge of retirement. Therefore, litigation in regard to their regularization is nothing but an unnecessary dispute mounting uncertainties upon their service condition.
13. This situation cannot be allowed to prevail in the case of this peculiar nature and does not have any serious financial consequences upon the State if the order of regularization is treated as valid, limited to the employees concerned. In the interest of justice, the benefit extended by the Writ Court appears to be a just and proper on equitable considerations.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Writ Court does not warrant any interference in this intra court appeals. Accordingly, the Special Appeals are dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.) (A. R. Masoodi J.)
Order Date :- 11.3.2025
kanhaiya
