Allowed

Sudhir Kumar Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. and Ors.

Allahabad HC3 May 2024WRIA/11854/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a regularization claim. The court relied on a previous judgment to hold that continuous service is not a stipulation under the 2016 Regularization Rules, requiring only engagement prior to 31.12.2001 and on the date of promulgation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 20.03.2018 was quashed. A writ of mandamus was issued directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim for regularization within two months, and later within six we

Sudhir Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34520

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11854 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Verma And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.

¶6

2. The claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected vide the order impugned dated 20.03.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, solely on the ground that the petitioner has not been in continuous service since 31.12.2001 till the date of promulgation of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' & Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2016) i.e. 12.09.2016.

¶7

3. Whether there is any requirement of continuous working of a person to be eligible for being considered for regularisation under the Rules 2016 has been considered by this Court in the case of Munnu Lal vs State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2018 (SS) decided on 16.07.2021 wherein this Court has held that there is no requirement of continuous working in terms of Rules 2016 rather the only thing required to be seen is that whether the person was appointed on or before 31.12.2001 and he is in service on the date of promulgation of the Rules, 2016 i.e. 12.09.2016.

¶8

4. Rule 6 of the Rules 2016 has been considered threadbare by this Court in the case of Munnu Lal (supra) wherein this Court

¶9

has held as under:

¶10

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, what comes out from perusal of the impugned order dated 22.03.2018 is that the case of the petitioner for regularization under 2016 Rules has been rejected solely on the ground that in terms of 2016 Rules the petitioner was not in continuous employment since 31.12.2001 to 12.09.2016. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not employed prior to 31.12.2001 or was not in engagement on 12.09.2016 i.e. the date of promulgation of 2016 Rules.

¶11

So far as the engagement of the petitioner prior to 31.12.2001 is concerned, the respondents themselves in the earlier order dated 25.06.2009 have admitted that the petitioner was engaged in June 1988 till February 1992 and thereafter from July 1999 to September 1999 and was also engaged subsequent thereto. Thus, the engagement prior to 31.12.2001 is admitted by the respondents. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was not in engagement as on 12.09.2016. Rule 6(1) of 2016 Rules for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-

¶12

"6. (1) Any person who-

¶13

(i) was directly engaged or employed or deployed or working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in a Government Department on Group 'C' or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) on or before December 31, 2001 and is still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of the commencement of these rules; and

¶14

(ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages or on work charge or on contract, under the relevant service rules and, subject to the provisions of above mentioned rules 2 and 5,

¶15

shall be considered for regular appointment on Group 'C' or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) in permanent or temporary

¶16

vacancy as may be available on the date of the commencement of these rules, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders."

¶17

Thus, it is apparent that 2016 Rules are applicable on those persons who are engaged prior to 31.12.2001 and are still in engagement or employed on the date of commencement of 2016 Rules i.e. 12.09.2016 and also possess requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment. Certain other conditions are also mentioned therein.

¶18

A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the respondents have not indicated that the petitioner is not qualified for being regularized on the said post rather the only ground of rejection is that he was not in engagement continuously from 31.12.2001 to 12.09.2016. As already indicated above, Rule 6(1) of 2016 Rules does not contain any such stipulation of being in continuous engagement for a particular period. Thus, it is apparent that the case of the petitioner for regularization has wrongly been rejected by the respondents.

¶19

Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 22.03.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with 2016 Rules within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶20

5. From perusal of judgement of this Court in the case of Munnu Lal (supra) it emerge that this Court after considering Rule 6 of the Rules 2016 has held that Rules 2016 are applicable on those persons who are engaged prior to 31.12.2021 and are still engaged or employed on the date of commencement of 2016 Rules, i.e. on 12.09.2016. The respondents however have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not been in continuous engagement for the period 2001 till the date of promulgation of

¶21

Rules 2016.

¶22

6. As already indicated above, Rules 2016 more particularly Rule 6 of the Rules, 2016 does not indicate anywhere of there being continuous service to be rendered by employee concerned rather the only stipulation is that a person should be in employment on the date of promulgation of Rules, i.e. 12.09.2016 and should have been engaged on or before 31.12.2001.

¶23

7. From perusal of order impugned dated 20.03.2018 it emerges that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground of the petitioner not being in continuous service from 31.12.2001 till the date of promulgation of the Rules i.e. 12.09.2016. Thus it is apparent that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the respondents.

¶24

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed . The order impugned dated 20.03.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The matter is remitted to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization under Rules 2016 keeping in view the discussion made above.

¶25

9. Let such a consideration be done within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.5.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶27

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudhir Kumar Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Nandan Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sugar Industries and Cane Development Lko. and Others

Usha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko. and Others

Vijay Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others

Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt.of Infrastructure and Industrial Development Lko and 2 Others

Mohd. Kalim Ayyubi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and Others