Girish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and Ors.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5101

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3637 of 2014

Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Deptt. Of Forest Lko. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dubey,Ram Bali Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 29.03.2014 passed by opposite party no. 3 by which the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Mali has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on Group D post as Mali on 01.11.1989 and since then he has continuously been working on the said post with short intervals/break in service. It is further submitted that the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wagers Appointment on Group D Post Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2001') came into existence on 21.12.2001 in pursuance of which the petitioner was eligible and qualified to be regularized on the post of Mali but the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.03.2014 by assigning the reason that there are breaks in service of the petitioner.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Janardan Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(2008) 1 UPLEC 498].

¶10

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the opposite party no. 3 which is impugned in the present writ petition as the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as prescribed under the Rules, 2001.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that as per Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules, 2001, the incumbent appointed directly on daily wages before 29.06.1991 and continuing on 21.12.2001 is eligible to be considered for regularization apart from other conditions whereas the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition had shown his initial year of appointment on daily wages on the post of Mali as 1989 but the said averment has been denied by the respondents in their counter afÏdavit with an averment that in support of his submission, the petitioner had not filed any document.

¶12

Even the opposite party no. 3 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization has simply given the chart since 1991 to 2001 giving the details of total working days of the petitioner in a year but has not mentioned the specific date in the impugned order to show that the petitioner was not appointed prior to 29.06.1991 and that he was not working on 21.12.2001 as required under Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules, 2001 and the claim of the petitioner was rejected simply on the ground that there are break in service of the petitioner.

¶13

In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the impugned order dated 29.03.2014 is hereby quashed.

¶14

The petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh representation to the opposite party no. 3 along with documentary evidence within a period of two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order and the opposite party no. 3 is directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner after looking into his records and pass appropriate order within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law from the date of production/receipt of representation of the petitioner.

¶15

In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 Nitesh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Girish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. through Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. through Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Devendra Singh Vs Regional Director , Reserve Bank of India Lko. and 2 Others

Uma Kant Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Anubhag Civil Secrtt. Govt. of Up Lko. and 4 Others

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health/Family Welfare, U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Subhash Singh Alias Subhash Singh Panwar Pno. No. 872650789 Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Abhinav Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others