Allahabad High Court
Ram Kewal Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
1. Heard learned learned counsel for petitioner(s), learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.
2.The facts and law in the both the petitions are almost common and as such are being taken up together and decided by present common judgment. These two writ petitions were heard along with Writ A No.8821 of 2024 and other connected petitions and reserved on 28.5.2025. The order dated 28.5.2025 (supra) is on the record of Writ A No.8821 of 2024.
3.The facts of Writ A No.7600 of 2024 are being discussed for the purpose of disposal of the petition(s).
4. By means of petition No.7600 of 2024, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 5.8.2024 (Annexure-3), passed by Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow.
A further writ of mandamus directing respondent authorities for amending the date of regularisation order dated 23.1.2019 whereby the petitioner's services have been regularised with immediate effect, to make it applicable from 1.1.2002 with consequential benefits, with a further direction to comply order dated 27.1.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 State of U.P. and others versus Raj Bahadur Pastor has also been sought.
5.In the connected petition No.7581 of 2024, the petitioner has mainly prayed for quashing order dated 16.8.2024 passed by respondent No.2 Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow. .
A further writ of mandamus directing respondents for amending date of regularisation order dated 21.12.2012 to be made applicable from 1.1.2002 and grant other consequential benefits has also been prayed.
6.As pleaded in the petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department on daily wages basis on 1.1.1986 and worked as such till 23.10.1991 and thereafter on a fixed pay against vacant post of Junior Engineer vide order dated 23.10.1991 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Lucknow. Services of the petitioner were extended until further orders of Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department vide order dated 6.9.1997. The petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 admissible to the Junior Engineer vide order dated 1.9.2000 passed by Chief Engineer, respondent No.2. The petitioner worked on the said vacant post of Junior Engineer for several years and was suitable to be regularised under the U.P. (post within the purview of Public Service commission) Adhoc Appointment Regularisation Rules, 1979 as amended (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001(in short, 2001 Amended Regularisation Rules). It is pleaded that for years, the petitioner was harassed by the respondents and was not regularised and ultimately, the respondent No.2 passed order of regualrisation on 23.1.2019 under the provisions of 2001 Amended Regularisation Rules, however, has not given the benefit of the regularisation in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2(iii) of 2001 Amended Relgularisation Rules. Several representations have been given by the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner retired on 31.1.2022 after completing age of superannuation of 60 years and rendering more than 35 years of satisfactory service to the department.
After retirement, the petitioner preferred a Writ A No.4506 of 2024 Ram Kewal Gupta versus State of U.P. and others which has been disposed of vide order dated 31.5.2024 with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. Thus, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.6.2024 under the provisions of 2001 Amended Relgularisation Rules and has cited orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 27.1.2022 in a similar matter in Special No.21 of 2022 State of U.P. and others versus Raj Bahadur Pastor filed by the State Government.
The State of U.P. being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.01.2022 passed by this Division Bench of this Court had filed a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11915 of 2022 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 27.09.2023, however, with an observation that all the questions of law are kept open. A review petition was also preferred assailing the order of the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 10.01.2024. A further interference was sought by the State Government by filing a Curative Petition (Civil) No.85 of 2024, which was also rejected by the Supreme Court.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that it has always been the claim of the petitioner for regularization on completion of the necessary period of service under Amended Relgularisation Rules, 2001 but it was on account of the lapse on the part of the respondents that they never took up the case for regularization and it is accordingly after a long lapse of time, the services of the petitioner were regularized in 2019. It is in this regard that similarly situated person namely, Raj Bahadur Pastor, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2020 and when the post retiral dues were not given to him, he preferred a writ petition being Writ-A No. 3660 of 2021 for seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him post retiral benefits and the same was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.8.2021 with a direction to the respondents to include the services rendered by the petitioner of the said petition from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.2018, i.e. prior to his regualrisation, towards qualifying service, and take a decision for payment of pension and other retiral dues. The State Government being aggrieved by the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 19.08.2021 filed a special appeal being Special Appeal No. 21 of 2022 before the Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad, which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 27.01.2022 where this Court after looking into all the aspects of the matter including the rules pertaining to the claim of the government servant for regularization disposed of the writ petition and observing in paragraph no. 48 as follows:-
"48. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of respondent/petitioner to be regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in light of the order of the writ court dated 21.2.1997 or in any event prior to regular appointment made in permanent or temporary vacancy in accordance with relevant service rules is liable to be considered by the Chief Engineer concerned in light of our above observations within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Chief Engineer. The authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001, since the benefit of regularization in any event will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The appellants, therefore, are commanded to extend all service and retiral benefits, which are found due and payable to the respondent/petitioner within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. The instant special appeal, is therefore, disposed off in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs."
8. In these circumstances, this court while disposing of a Writ A No.2522 of 2025 Shashi Kant Singh versus State of U.P. and others vide order dated 4.3.2025 called upon the State Government to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgment of Division Bench in Raj Bahadur Pastor's case (supra) where the Division Bench on considering all the issues and the objections raised by the State was of the view that the petitioners therein were entitled to be regualrised with effect from the date of initial appointment and he was granted regualrisation from 20.12.2001.
However, the respondent No.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 5.8.2024 contrary to the provisions of Rule 2(iii) of 2001 Amended Regularisation Rules, orders passed by the High Court as well Supreme Court in similar matter. It is submitted that the order is arbitrary.
9. Learned standing counsel though has opposed the petition, however, he could not dispute that the law has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor and it has attained finality as a result of dismissal of Special Leave Petition, review petition as well as the curative petition filed by the State Government.
10. I have considered the submission(s) and perused the record.
11.A perusal of the record shows that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 5.8.2024, in para 9, the ground of seniority has been taken whereas it is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as he has already retired on 31.1.2022 and has not made any claim regarding seniority. The prayer of the petitioner is limited to his claim for regularisation w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and not from the date of regularisation order dated 23.1.2019. Likewise in the rejection order dated 5.8.2024 (supra) in paras 16 and 17, a very strange finding has been recorded by respondent No.2 that Raj Bahadur Pastor has been given the benefit of regularisation from 1.1.2002 under legal compulsion in compliance of orders passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court and the same is subject to outcome of curative petition and cannot be treated as precedent in matters of other department(s). In para 17, a reference has been given to the pending special appeal No.677 of 2023 State of U.P. versus Shailendra Pratap Singh and in a way, an inability has been expressed to comply orders of the court in view of pendency of the special appeal, being a perplexed situation and due to the policy matter.
While passing the impugned order, particularly finding made in para 16 thereof, reason has been given that the order of regularisation of Raj Bahadur Pastor dated 26.2.2024 has been issued under legal compulsion and therefore, it cannot be treated as a precedent in the matters of other departments. This reasoning given in para 16 of the impugned order is totally without application of mind. Perhaps the respondents have lost sight of the fact that Raj Bahadur Pastor was also an employee of Minor Irrigation Department like the petitioner. There is no distinction either on fact or law in regard to applicability of the judgment in the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor. There is no cogent reason forthcoming for rejecting the case of the petitioner distinguishing it from the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor.
12.Learned standing counsel could not point out any point of distinction of the case of the petitioner from the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor.
13. The relevant paragraphs of the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) passed in Special Appeal No. 21 of 2022, reads as under:-
"7. The direction of the Tribunal was challenged by State by filing a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court being writ petition (SB) No. 1506 of 2015. A Division Bench of this Court disposed off the writ petition filed by the State in following terms vide order dated 30th November, 2017:-
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the finding, which has been given by the Tribunal that Admittedly, the petitioners qualify for regularization in accordance with the Rules, 2001, is not correct because that leaves no room for the petitioners/respondents to exercise their discretion in considering the case of the respondents/claimants for regularization as per Rules 2001.
At this stage, after arguing at some length, it is amicably settled between the parties that the present writ petitions may be disposed of with direction that the petitioners/Officer respondents may consider the case of Shashi Kant Singh, Shiv Mohan Richhariya and Raj Bahadur Pastor in accordance with Rules 2001.
Accordingly, in view of the above said fact, both the writ petitions are disposed of with direction that the Competent Authority shall consider the case of Shashi Kant Singh, Shiv Mohan Richhariya and Raj Bahadur Pastor for regularization on the post of junior engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department, as per Rules 2001, after giving opportunity of hearing to them."
42. The fact that claim of respondent/petitioner for regularization under the notification dated 20.12.2001 was covered is neither in doubt nor is disputed in view of the order dated 31.12.2018 since his initial engagement on adhoc basis was from a date prior to 30.6.1998; he was working on 20.12.2001; he possessed requisite qualification for regular appointment at the time of initial adhoc appointment and had completed three years continuous service.
43. The notification dated 20.12.2001 was expected to be given effect to with immediate effect and the consideration of claim for regularization of respondent/petitioner ought not to have been deferred for so long particularly in view of the express provision contained in the rule itself. Rule 2(iii) of the amended rules notified on 20.12.2001 also indicates the specific intent by the rule framing authority for such consideration to be made before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the service rules. The language employed in rule 2(iii) is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter:-
"2(iii). Any person who - has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders."
44. The fact that the above rule requires consideration for regularization against permanent or temporary vacancy, before any regular appointment is made in accordance with relevant service rule is of importance and cannot be ignored. The rule making authority was conscious that non consideration of claim for regularization notwithstanding the existence of rule for such purpose may adversely affect the adhoc employee, in the matter of determination of seniority etc. and, therefore, made a specific provision for such regularization under the rules to be considered prior to any regular appointment made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules. Denial of timely consideration in accordance with the rules for regularization may otherwise deny service and retiral benefits to adhoc employees only because of administrative lethargy on part of the department concerned in processing such claim.
45. No valid reasons have otherwise been disclosed for non consideration of claim of respondent/petitioner for regularization after 20.12.2001, particularly when the order dated 21.2.1997 already existed of this Court for regularizing his services. The only plea taken in the counter affidavit to justify belated consideration for regularization is that the State Government directed such claim to be considered only vide order 7.9.2018. This plea of the appellant to explain the delay in consideration of claim for regularization is noticed only to be rejected."
14. In Lt. Col Suprita Chandel versus Union of India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664, it has been held by Supreme Court that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court.
In another case Union of India versus Munshi Ram (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1493, it has been held that the State cannot treat similarly situated employees differently. Denial of similar benefits to similarly situated employees would amount to violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Financial burden is not a ground to deny benefit (paras 29, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 60 emphasised).
15.In light of the above, this Court finds itself bound by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) and specially noticing that the said judgement has been upheld by the Supreme Court and is binding not only to be followed by this Court but also on the authority as well.
16. In light of the discussion made above, this writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated 5.8.2024 and 16.8.2024 (supra) are quashed. The respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner(s) in service w.e.f. 01.01.2002 in accordance with the provisions of U.P. (post within the purview of Public Service commission) Adhoc Appointment Regularisation Rules, 1979 as amended (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 and grant them all consequential benefits.
