Quashed

Ram Nath v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2019WRIA/8046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting petitioner's regularization claim. The court quashed the order for failing to assess continuity of employment against the relevant statutory rules and directed a fresh decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 25th January 2019 quashed; authority to pass fresh order within three months applying Rules 2001 and 2016.

Ram Nath Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8046 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

While entertaining the writ petition, time was granted to learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. Despite grant of opportunity, no counter affidavit has been filed. Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed no further opportunity is required to be given to the State in the matter.

¶6

Petitioner's claim for being regularized in the employment of State was directed to be considered pursuant to an order passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1365 of 2013. Since the directions were not carried out, a contempt petition was filed whereafter the order impugned has been passed by the Director rejecting petitioner’s claim. This order records that petitioner's appointment since was not made by the competent authority, therefore, his claim for regularization cannot be considered.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's claim for regularization in services has not been examined with reference to the U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment), Rules 2001, as also the subsequent Rules of 2016. Submission is that the authority was required to have examined whether petitioner was in employment on the cut off dates specified in the Rules and that the question of initial appointment made in the year 1990 would not be a relevant consideration.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel states that petitioner’s claim would be considered, afresh, in accordance with law.

¶9

For the purposes of examining claim of an employee for regularization only such factors have to be taken note of as are specifically enumerated in the Rules framed for regularization. The Rules of 2001 and also the subsequent Rules 2016 provides for the cut off dates on which the employee has to be in employment, and if it is found that he had continuously worked within two cut off dates excluding artificial breaks, he would be entitled to be considered for regularization.

¶10

In the facts of the present case, the authorities have not considered petitioner's claim with reference to the stipulation made in the regularization rules.

¶11

The initial appointment of the petitioner admittedly was irregular and that is why the question for its regularization has arisen. The authority concerned, is therefore, expected to examine petitioner’s claim with reference to the relevant parameters specified in the statute and not to non-suit the petitioner on grounds which are not specifically specified in the Rules. Since the order of the Director is found to have taken note of materials, which are otherwise not relevant, as such the order impugned cannot be sustained.

¶12

Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 25th January 2019 stands quashed. The authority concerned shall pass a fresh order, keeping in view the provisions of Rules 2001, as also the subsequent Rules 2016. Required consideration would be made within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.7.2019 M. ARIF

Ram Nath v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nath 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Medical and Health, Lucknow and 3 Others

Iqbal Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Markandey Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pramod Dubey Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Kapil Dev Yadav Vs the Forest Officer Social Forestry Forest Department and 2 Others

Gena Lal Yadav Vs Divisional Director Social Forestry Forest Department and 2 Others