Allowed

Jai Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2018WRIA/18909/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's regularization claim. The court held that since the Labor Court awarded continuity of service, the petitioner is deemed to be in service, entitling him to regularization under the applicable UP Rules.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order rejecting the claim for regularization. Directed the Respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization within four weeks in accordance with the 2016 UP Regul

Jai Pratap Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18909 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Jai Pratap Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramanuj Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ramanuj Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Petitioner has approached this court challenging the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by the respondent no.4, Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam, Fatehpur whereby his representation for regularisation of his services on the post of watchman has been rejected.

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was engaged on daily-wages to perform the duty of watchman in December, 1987. He was disengaged from the service on 1.3.1990. He raised Industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication before the Labour Court, Allahabad and an adjudication case no. 15 of 1992 was registered . The labour court decided the aforesaid case by the award dated 18.9.2000 directing the payment of his wages from 1.3.1990 to 15.2.2000.He was also granted benefit of continuity of service from 1.3.1990 till the date of passing of the award on 18.9.2000.

¶8

The aforesaid award was subjected to challenge before this court by means of Writ Petition No. 16919 of 2007 and same was dismissed on 30.3.2007.The Special Leave to Appeal No. 16576 of 2007 filed against the same before the Apex Court was also dismissed on 11.10.2007, as such award attained finality. Petitioner was reinstated in service on 10.1.2012 and he has also received entire back wages in terms of the award .

¶9

Petitioner made an application for regularization in service stating that since he has been granted benefit of continuity of service by the labour court,

¶10

therefore, he is entitled to be considered for regularisation in service.

¶11

He further stated that other daily wages employees working along with him have already been regularized in service but on the ground of pendency of the case of the petitioner in the court , he was not considered . Since no action has been taken on his representation, he preferred Writ petition no. 5811 of 2016 which was disposed of by this court by order dated 12.2.2016 directing the respondents to consider his claim for regularisation within two months and the impugned order dated 7.4.2016 has been passed in compliance of the aforesaid direction, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization in service.

¶12

Only ground of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for regularization in service is that he has worked only from 1.12.1987 to 31.12.1987 thereafter from 1.9.1988 to 31.12.1988 i.e. for total period of five months in the department.

¶13

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 it has been stated in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit that petitioner has worked from December 1987 to Ist March 1990 and, thereafter he was disengaged from service . He approached the labour court challenging his retrenchment from service by the respondent.

¶14

The labour court has held that termination of the petitioner with effect from 1.3.1990, to be illegal and has granted benefits of continuing service from the date of retrenchment i.e., 1.3.1990 and has reinstated him in service by the award dated 18.9.2000.

¶15

The finding in the impugned order that petitioner has worked only for five months is wrong in view of the decision of the respondent in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit which states that he has worked from December 1987 to 1st March, 1990. Once the retrenchment of the petitioner with effect from 1.3.1990 was held to be bad by the labour court and benefits of continuing of service

¶16

and back wages were awarded, it is not open for the respondents to reject his claim for regularisation in service on the ground that he has worked only for five months in the respondentcorporation.

¶17

Once the labour court has held that retrenchment of the petitioner to be bad, the respondent was required to consider the case of petitioner for regularization in the service treating petitioner's working to be uninterrupted.

¶18

Petitioner is required to be considered for regularisation in service as per "The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation 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" which provides vide Rule 6 that the employees, who have been working since 31.12.2001 or prior to that date in Group 'C' or Group 'D' post falling outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission, shall be considered for regularization. Since he is deemed to be in service as per the law before the cut off date 31.12.2001, the respondent nos. 4 and 6 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in service afresh within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before them in accordance with the Rules aforesaid.

¶19

The impugned order dated 7.4.2016 passed by the respondent no 4 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.3.2018 Atul kr. sri.

Jai Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyavrat Upadhayay Vs Dios and Others

Pradip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Surendra Kumar Dixit Vs D.I.O.S. and Others

Lalit Kumar Garg Vs Committee of Management and Another

Hridhya Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Narain Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.