Allowed

Akhilesh Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2019WRIA/8255/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularization of services as a daily wager employee. Court quashed rejection order dated 14.12.2016, allowing fresh consideration after dismissal of State's challenge to Labour Court award granting deemed regular service.

What did the court decide?

Quashed order dated 14.12.2016; directed Respondent No.4 to consider case for regularization within two months after receiving fresh representation.

Akhilesh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8255 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Akhilesh Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the respondent no. 4 namely, Executing Engineer, Sone Mechanical, Construction Division, Varunapuram Chhetupura, Sinchai Colony, Sigra, Varanasi.

¶8

Facts in brief is contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Operator/Helper in the month of December 1991 on daily wages. Wholly illegally his services were terminated on 28.12.1998. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner has preferred an industrial dispute which was numbered as Cases No. 28 of 2007. An award was given by the labour court on 30.08.2011 by which the order of termination of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 28.12.1998 was declared as illegal and petitioner was directed for reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Subsequent to the same petitioner join his services on 03.03.2012. Aggrieved against the award passed by the Labour Court the Writ Petition No. 32287 of 2012 was filed by the State of U.P. before this Court. Initially an interim order was granted but ultimately the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

¶9

07.05.2019.

¶10

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working regularly in the department since December 1991 on the post of operator/helper on daily wages. A Government order dated 24.02.2016 was issued by the State Government for regularization of services of all the daily wager employees and cut off date as mentioned in the Government Order was 31.12.2001. It is stated that all the daily wager employees / work-charge employees working on contractual basis, if they are working on or before 31.12.2001, became entitled for regularization subject to conditions as contained in the aforesaid Government Order itself.

¶11

After the award of the Labour Court was made in favour of the petitioner, petitioner submitted an application before the respondents for regularization of his services in terms of Government Order dated 24.02.2016. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide its order dated 14.12.2016 in which one of the ground was taken that against the award passed by Labour Court in favour of petitioner, the writ petition was filed by the State and the same is pending for consideration before this Court. It is contended by the counsel for the parties that now the writ petition filed against the petitioner by the State of U.P. has already been dismissed on 07.05.2019, as such the petitioner now became entitled for consideration of his case for regularization.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages in the month of December 1991. Although certain artificial breaks were there in the services of the petitioner but subsequently an award has been

¶14

given by the Labour Court with the directions that the petitioner will be treated as deemed to be in regular service. The award given by the Labour Court was challenged by the State of U.P. before this Court and writ petition has been dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2019.

¶15

In view of the subsequent development, the petitioner now became entitled for consideration of his case a fresh for the purpose of regularization in terms of the Government Order as stated above.

¶16

In view of the same, the present writ petition is finally disposed off, directing the respondent no. 4 to pass a fresh order regarding consideration of the case of regularization of services of the petitioner as stated herein-above. Petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation stating all the facts and also annexing all the relevant documents before respondent no. 4 alongwith the certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today. If such a representation is made, respondent no. 4 will consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of two months, thereafter. The order passed earlier order dated 14.12.2016 passed by respondent no. 4, is hereby quashed.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.8.2019 Swati

Akhilesh Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Chaudhary 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

Jai Shree Devi Yadava Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Ram Chandra Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Ram Bhagat Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Ashish Kumar Panday and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Devendra Kumar Posti Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others