Allowed

Rajesh Pal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2023/1319/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a regularization claim. The court held that the impugned order was erroneous in relying on a later government order and violated Article 14 due to discrimination, as similar appointees were regularized. The matter was remanded for regularization.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.12.2022 set aside; writ petition allowed; matter remanded for regularization similar to that passed for four others consisting Rajrani, Hira Lal, Srikant Verma and Harinam Sing

Rajesh Pal and Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1319 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Pal And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Deptt., Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Kumar Pandey,Lalit Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.12.2022 whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected holding that the petitioners were appointed as Ward Boys and thus, their claim cannot be considered.

¶6

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners were appointed as Ward Boys with the respondent from 1997 up to 2001 and the petitioners continued to work on the said post. Subsequently, when the petitioners were not being regularized and were being discriminated, the petitioners preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.4688 (SS) of 2001 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed off directing the petitioners to avail alternative remedy before the Labour Court. The petitioners appeared before the Labour Court which led to passing of an award on 03.11.2015 in their favour wherein directions were issued for regularizing the petitioners from 07.09.1991 and for payment of equal wages. The said award passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent - institute in Writ Petition No.14042 (MS) of 2016, which was disposed off on 05.07.2018 and corrected on 13.07.2018 modifying the award to the extent that the regularization shall not be from 07.09.1991 and shall be from the date which is referable to the provisions contained in Government Order dated 12.09.2016.

¶7

In the light of the said direction given by this Court on 13.07.2018, once again the claim of the petitioners for regularization was rejected which ultimately led to the petitioners filing Writ Petition No.13526 (SS) of 2020. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 15.11.2021 setting aside the order dated 28.02.2020 and the matter was remanded for considering the case of the petitioners for regularization under Government order dated 24.02.2016 within a period of two months.

¶8

It is stated that in terms of the directions passed by this Court, a committee was constituted on 22.06.2022 comprising of seven members to give their view with regard to regularization of the

¶9

petitioners.

¶10

It is argued that despite the report by the said committee, the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 was passed rejecting the request of the petitioners for regularization.

¶11

This Court had called for the records from the respondents; the record has been obtained. This Court has perused the report given by the committee constituted on 22.06.2022 which has recommended that the case of the petitioners be considered for regularization.

¶12

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order is bad in law for reasons more than one. He argues that the Labour Court vide its award dated 03.11.2015 itself had directed the regularization of the petitioners; he argues that the said award was modified by this Court only to the extent that the date of regularization shall not be 07.09.1991 and shall be the date as prescribed in the Government Order dated 12.09.2016.

¶13

He argues that it was incumbent upon the respondents to have directed the regularization from the date which is referable to the Government Order dated 12.09.2016. He argues that this Court never intended that the regularization should be under the Government Order dated 12.09.2016 and it was always the intention of the government that the date referred in the Government Order dated 12.09.2016 would be the date from which the petitioners would be regularized. He further argues that alongwith the petitioners, as many as 15 persons were appointed as Ward Boys as is clear from the letter dated 06.11.1998 (Annexure - 2) and the respondents have regularized the services of four of the said persons namely Rajrani, Hira Lal, Shrikant Verma and Harinam Singh and thus, the petitioners have been discriminated and their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India have been violated.

¶14

Shri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 & 5 states that the order impugned was passed in the light of an another committee constituted on 26.02.2022 headed by a retired judge of this Court, who had given an opinion against the regularization mainly on the ground that it would be contrary to the Government Order dated 24.02.2016.

¶15

In the light of the said submission, this Court is to decide as to whether the order passed denying the benefit of regularization is justified or not?

¶16

The order itself records that the petitioners were appointed as

¶17

Ward Boys and there is no post of Ward Boy in the institute and the Government Order dated 24.02.2016 provides for regularization of the workers who were appointed on a post and since there is no post of Ward Boy, the claim cannot be considered. It further records that the government order also records that the institute will have to bear the financial burden and the petitioners were always given their wages from the contribution received from the student for the hostel management.

¶18

It further records that the appointment made without prior permission of the State Government would be bad and would be treated as a cognizable offence.

¶19

The whole order is erroneous and illegal for the reasons that the right of regularization of the petitioners stood fructified in the award of the Labour Court passed on 03.11.2015 and only the date from which the regularization was to be granted was modified by the Court holding that the date as mentioned in the Government Order dated 12.09.2016 would be the date from which the regularization would be granted. The said issue stood clarified vide order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the High Court and thus, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have passed the order of regularization although from a date which was traceable to the date as contained in the Government Order dated 12.09.2016.

¶20

The claim of regularization of the petitioners was never on the foundation of the Government Order dated 12.09.2016 and the mention of the Government Order in the order dated 13.07.2018 was only in respect of date from where the regularization is to be granted. The impugned order and the report of the committee constituted on 26.02.2022 are founded on the ground that regularization is to be considered in the light of the Government Order dated 12.09.2016 and thus erroneous.

¶21

In any case, the order is further bad as the petitioners have been discriminated, as four similar persons appointed on the same ground and on the same post have been regularized, thus, to that extent the right of the petitioners enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India have been violated; the order is further bad in law inasmuch as the committee itself has recommended the regularization to be granted to the petitioners.

¶22

The stand taken by the respondents is solely based upon the Government Order dated 24.02.2016, which is also erroneous in view of the judgment passed by this Court and discussed above.

¶23

For all the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated

¶24

02.12.2022 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed.

¶25

The matter is remanded for passing the order of regularization in respect of the petitioners similar to the one passed in the case of four persons namely Rajrani, Hira Lal, Srikant Verma and Harinam Singh and in the light of the recommendation given by the committee in its report dated 23.07.2022.

¶26

The fresh order, as directed above, shall be passed within a period of two months from today.

¶27

It is made clear that the respondents shall not deny the claim on the ground as contained in the impugned order dated 02.12.2022.

¶28

Needless to say that the petitioners would be entitled to all the benefits which shall flow in their favour by virtue of the regularization order, as directed above.

¶29

Order Date :- 28.2.2023

¶30

nishant

¶31

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Pal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Pal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Deptt., Lko. and 4 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

Varunesh Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Madhyamik Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Smt. Kusum Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary. Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Puja Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Culture Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 2 Others

Ashish Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt Lko. and 5 Others