Allahabad High Court
State Of Up And 3 Others vs Smt Joshoda Alias Joshadiay And Another on 5 May, 2025
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71281-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1130 of 2024
Appellant :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Respondent :- Smt Joshoda Alias Joshadiay And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,Tej Bhanu Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Deepak Kumar Jaiswal,Sheo Prasad Yadav
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
1. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the wife of the deceased employee and has granted the benefit of regularization in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Prasad vs. R.G. Prasad and Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 437. Thus aggrieved, the State is before us in this intra court appeal.
2. The facts of the case have been noticed by the learned Single Judge as per which the employee was initially appointed as overseer (subsequently re-named as Junior Engineer) in Public Works Department (in short 'PWD') on ad-hoc basis with effect from 7.10.1965. He was subsequently regularized as Junior Engineer on 1.4.1075. He was later granted ad-hoc promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 10.1.1980 for a period of one year or till a candidate selected by the Commission join. 89 persons were recommended for promotion as Assistant Engineer. 34 Assistant Engineers had earlier been promoted and were already working as Assistant Engineer. Their promotion is allowed from the date of ad-hoc promotion. The other 55 employees whose names were not included in the list forwarded by the Public Service Commission were reverted to the original post of Junior Engineer. These persons were given benefit of promotion only from the date of regularization. The deceased employee was one of those 55 employees. The benefit of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer has thus been granted to the deceased employee only with effect from the date of regularization.
3. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Govind Prasad (supra), wherein directions were issued by the Court in para 14 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
"14. As a result of the above discussion we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. We order as under:
1. The selection made by the State Government in the year 1983 was in accordance with law and as such is upheld. The select list notified in the memorandum dated November 5, 1983 is declared valid and operative.
2. All the selected candidates listed in the office memorandum dated November 5, 1983 shall be deemed to have been appointed, if not already appointed, to the posts of Assistant Engineers with effect from the respective dates when they were to be appointed, in the ordinary course, on the basis of the said selection.
3. The memorandum did not lay down conditions of service in respect of Electrical and Mechanical branches. The memorandum was a document showing the policy decisions of the Government to be implemented in future.
4. The Junior Engineers who are holding the posts of Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis shall be treated as having been appointed as ad hoc Assistant Engineers from the dates when they would have completed ten years of service as Junior Engineers and this shall be the relevant date for the purposes of paras 5 and 6 hereafter.
5. The Junior Engineers who are holding the posts of Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis shall be considered for regularisation in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Promotions (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988 (Regularisation Rules).
6. The ad hoc promotees, who do not come within the purview of the Regularisation Rules, shall be considered for regular appointment through the process of selection to be held by the State Government in accordance with the rules and the executive instructions governing the conditions of service of the two branches of the Public Works Department. Those selected shall be appointed on regular basis from the dates they were appointed on ad hoc basis. We further direct that the process of selection be completed within four months of the receipt of this judgment and status quo shall continue till then.
7. The conditions of service of the three branches of the Public Works Department have not been laid down with clarity either in the 1936 Rules or in any of the executive instructions issued by the Government from time to time. We commend the State of Uttar Pradesh to lay down the conditions of service of the three branches of the Public Works Department in clear and certain terms either by executive instructions or by statutory rules at its discretion."
4. Learned Single Judge has opined that in terms of the observations/directions issued by the Supreme Court those selected for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer were to be appointed from the date they were appointed on ad-hoc basis. In respect of Assistant Engineers regularized under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Promotions (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regularisation Rules of 1988) also similar promotion has been extended by learned Single Judge.
5. The observations contained in para 14(4) to 14(6) clearly reveals that the claim for promotion was to be reckoned from the date of their ad-hoc appointment. Such consideration was to be either under the Regularization Rules of 1988 or on the basis of substantive promotion. Learned Single Judge was of the view that no distinction ought to be drawn in the two categories.
6. The submission of learned State counsel that since the respondent's claim was not forwarded by the Commission and, therefore, he was reverted and was subsequently regularized on the promoted post, as such the benefit from the date of ad-hoc promotion ought not to be extended to him cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the Supreme Court in para 14(5) had specified as to what would be the date for consideration of claim for promotion. Such date has been specified as the date of ad-hoc appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer. Once that be so, the cases of those covered under the Regularization Rules of 1988 would thus require equal treatment. Co-joint reading of direction contained in para 14(4) and 14(6) of the judgment of Supreme Court clearly leads to such conclusion. Learned Single Judge, therefore, has not committed any error in extending the relief to the respondent-petitioner. Special appeal is devoid of merits and is, consequently, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.5.2025
RA
