Allahabad High Court
Principal Scy. Forest Anubhag-3 And ... vs Gulab Khan And Others on 27 October, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188044-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 122 of 2012
Principal Scy. Forest Anubhag-3 And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Gulab Khan And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
M.C. Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Pankaj Srivastava
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 41598 of 2002 before this Court claiming minimum of the pay scale and regularization of his services having worked as daily wager with the forest department for considerable period. The writ petition filed by the respondent as well as several other petitions leading one being Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs. Conservator of Forest, and Lucknow, were disposed of by common judgement dated 17.10.2005 with the following directions:- "23. The State Government is directed to reconsider all the petitioners for regularisation ignoring the artificial breaks, and the minimum educational qualifications and the physical endurance prescribed by the service rules. The selection committees shall meet again and shall reconsider the candidature of all the petitioners for regularisation. Those petitioners who are found eligible shall be included in the merit list to be regularized on the vacancies or the vacancies which may arise in future in their respective divisions, and until then all the petitioners who are still working shall be allowed to continue on the daily wages, and shall be entitled for minimum pay scale which was so allowed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Puti Lal 2002 1 UPLBEC 1595. The directions shall be carried out in three months. The petitioners are also held entitled to the costs."
3. It appears that one Sabha Shanker Dube, a daily wager, filed writ petition claiming minimum of the pay scale and also regularization of his services. His writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgement dated 28.4.2004. Thereafter, the matter was carried in special appeal and the same too was dismissed by a Division Bench vide judgement dated 24.9.2015 placing reliance on an earlier judgement of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Chhiddi, 2016 (1) All LJ 226. Challenging the aforesaid judgement, Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court and ultimately, it came to be decided by the Supreme Court by judgement reported in (2019) 12 SCC 297. The appeal filed by Sabha Shankar Dube and other similar appeals were allowed relying upon the previous judgements of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 and State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148. The appellants therein were held entitled to minimum of the pay scale, applicable to regular employees, working on the same post. The State was further directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scale to the appellant therein with effect from 1.12.2018. In paragraph -3 of the aforesaid judgement, the Supreme Court has specifically taken note of the impugned judgement rendered in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs. Conservator of Forest.
4. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court while allowing the appeal held the appellants' entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, applicable to regular employees. However, the Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the issue of regularization. The relevant part of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) is reproduced below for convenience of the reference:- "12. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service. 13. We express no opinion on the contention of the State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to the reliefs as they are not working on Group 'D' posts and that some of them worked for short periods in projects. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these Appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court holding that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1-12-2018."
5. Against the said judgement, it seems that a curative petition was filed, which was also dismissed.
6. Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel very fairly concedes that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the extent of payment of minimum of the pay scale to the respondent, herein, is covered by the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court in Sabha Shanker Dube and the previous judgements in Putti Lal and Jagjit Singh. He submits that the other direction in relation to regularization ignoring artificial breaks is however liable to be set aside.
7. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent states that if minimum of the pay scale is granted to the respondent he would not make claim for regularization on the basis of the judgement of learned Single Judge. He, however, submits that subsequently the department itself has framed Rules relating to regularization and therefore, if regularization is claimed it would be only on the basis of those Rules.
8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of upholding the direction of learned Single Judge for payment of minimum of the pay scale to the respondent. However, the other directions shall stand set aside as agreed to by counsel for the parties but without prejudice to any right under the subsequent Regularization Rules, if any, framed in that regard. The arrears of salary as would become payable to the respondent, on the basis of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, as upheld in the instant appeal, would be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
October 27, 2025
S.Prakash
