Regularized petitioners sought benefit of a Division Bench judgment on the 2001 amendment to the 1979 UP Regularization Rules. The court disposed of the writ petition, directing them to seek relief from the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD via representation, with a reasoned speaking order required within six weeks.
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. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2381 of 1995
Petitioner :- Akshay Veer Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.Misra,Anshuman Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh,Nishchay Anand,Subhas Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard Sri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that subsequent to filing of the instant writ petition, all the petitioners have been regularized vide orders dated 11.08.2006, 06.07.2006 & 22.05.2007.
It is thus contended that with regard to the reliefs as prayed for in the instant writ petition, the same have invariably been granted to the petitioners except the fact that they would be entitled for benefit of the amendment of the year 2001 made in the Rules more particularly the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (On Posts within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. It is contended that this aspect of the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of petition leading being Special Appeal No. 56 of 2022 Inre; Sri Kamrul Haq and ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors decided on 03.04.2024.
It is prayed that as the petitioners have been regularized yet are seeking the benefit of the aforesaid judgment consequently, the competent authority be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
To the aforesaid prayer, learned Standing counsel has no objection.
Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the competent authority who is said to be the Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Lucknow i.e the respondent no. 2 seeking benefit of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Kamrul Haq (supra) along with the comprehensive representation. In case, such a representation is made within a period of two weeks from today then the respondent no. 2 shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order upon the same which order would be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation along with certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Pachhere/-
Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether regularized ad hoc appointees may claim benefit of the 2001 amendment to the 1979 Regularization Rules in terms of the Kamrul Haq Division Bench judgment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sri Kamrul Haq and ors Vs. State of U.P and OrsRelied on
Special Appeal No. 56 of 2022 Inre; Sri Kamrul Haq and ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors decided on 03.04.2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Akshay Veer Singh And Others
State Of U.P. And Others
Abdul Moin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
