In a writ petition, the petitioner sought regularisation of employment from 2004 despite the order being passed in 2016. The court dismissed the petition, holding that regularisation orders take effect from the date of passing per Supreme Court law and rules.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21484 of 2017 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harish Pratap Singh,Pradeep Chauhan
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Oral
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the regularisation of the petitioner w.e.f. 22.9.2004 and to fix his salary and retiral dues by treating the date of his regularisation as to 2004 and not 2016.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a daily wager / lab assistant in Nagar Nigam, Agra since 1991. He applied for his regularisation in 1999. His case was considered by the Committee and recommended in the year 2000 and again in 2004, but no orders regularising the petitioner were passed for reasons best known to the respondents. Ultimately, the order of regularisation was passed only on 22.4.2016.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the respondents have admitted the case as set up by the petitioner in his writ petition to the extent that his name was recommended for regularisation on 27.3.2000 again on 19.7.2000, 21.9.2000 and 22.9.2004, his regularisation however could not take place.
Later on, on 11.8.2009, the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari again recommended the regularisation of the petitioner, but the post on which he was recommended to be regularised was a post meant for direct recruitment, therefore his case could not actually be considered till April, 2016, as the respondents were waiting for the directions of the State Government in the matter.
The State Government however informed that
since the post of lab assistant belonged to a non Centralised Cadre, the decision had to be taken at the level of Nagar Nigam itself. It was thereafter alone that the petitioner's case was considered for regularisation and the order dated 12.4.2016 was issued subject again to any order to the contrary being passed by the State Government. It is not disputed that till date the State Government has not passed any order, setting aside the order dated 22.4.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the initial recommendation was made by the competent Committee for regularisation in 2004, if his case is directed to be considered for regularisation w.e.f. 2004, the petitioner shall be entitled to all pensionary benefits as are available to regular Government servant on rendering requisite number of years of qualifying service for pension.
This Court is aware of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court and also by this Court that an order of regularisation shall take effect from the date on which it is passed. In the case of the petitioner, such order was passed on 22.4.2016. It is of no consequence that the recommendation was made in his favour on an earlier occasion by a competent Committee. Under the Rules meant for regularisation of daily wagers as notified in 2001 also the date of regularisation shall be the date on which such order is passed.
This Court therefore cannot direct the respondents to act against the statutory provisions and treat the regularisation of the petitioner w.e.f. September 2004 as prayed by him in this writ petition.
This writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.1.2019 Arif
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a daily wager can be granted regularisation retrospectively from the date of recommendation rather than the date of the order passed.
Anil Kumar Dixit
State Of U.P.
4 Ors.
Sangeeta Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
