Satendra Kumar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38363

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1568 of 1995

Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C. Misra,Anshuman Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh,Geetika Yadav,Nishchay Anand,Subhash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Geetika Yadav learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging advertisement dated 24th October, 1994 as well as for a direction to opposite parties to regularize services of petitioners against vacant post of Junior Engineers with effect from the date on which they have joined and are working in public works department. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to pay full salary and allowances regularly in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 alongwith consequential benefits have also been sought.

¶8

It has been submitted that petitioners were initially engaged in the department as daily wagers but in fact performed duties of Junior Engineers in various capacities but were paid only daily wages. Such engagement in services was done in the years 1988 to 1990. However owing to the fact that during subsistence of their services as daily wage employee in the department, advertisement dated 24th October, 1994 was issued for direct recruitment leading to filing of present writ petition.

¶9

It is submitted that during pendency of the present writ petition, services of all the petitioners were regularized by means of order dated 11th August, 2006 but only prospectively. Such orders have been brought on record as Annexure S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 24th February, 2025. It is also submitted that certain other similarly situated personnel had also filed writ petitions before this Court with leading petition being Writ A No. 2970 of 1994 (Hasan Akhtar and others versus State of U.P. and others) and other connected matters which were dismissed by means of common judgment and order dated 27th January, 2022 holding that since petitioners were regularized during pendency of writ petition, their original relief stood granted and the amended relief could not be granted since the petitioners were initially appointed on work charge or daily wages and not as ad hoc. The said judgment and order was thereafter challenged in special appeal No. 56 of 2022

¶10

alongwith other connected special appeals bearing Nos. 58, 62 and 100 of 2022. The said special appeals were consolidated and have been allowed by means of judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2024. The said judgment has thereafter been upheld by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 25700 of 2024, State of U.P. and others versus Kamrul Haq and others by means of order dated 13th August, 2024.

¶11

It is therefore submitted that since the aforesaid controversy has already attained finality, benefits of the same should be provided to the petitioners as well.

¶12

Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties does not dispute the aforesaid aspects.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the issue in question before the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 56 of 2022, Kamrul Haq and others versus State of U.P. and others was similar to that of petitioners since the appellants therein were also appointed on work charge or daily wage basis with the public works department and had been assigned duties of Junior Engineer. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:-

¶14

"30. Thus, it would be seen that the appellants herein were granted the benefit and were treated as ad hoc employees as the same is mentioned in the order of regularization itself. Accordingly, once the appellants had been regularized on 06.09.2006 treating them to be ad hoc employees and in any case in view of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in earlier petition which was filed by the Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and Writ Petition No.2605 (S/S) of 1991, Yogesh Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others and Writ Petition No.1400 of 1991, Virendra Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & others wherein directions have been issued by the Court which were never set aside, hence it was incumbent upon the respondents to have complied with the same at the earliest and even though the regularization was made in the year 2006 yet they were entitled to the benefit of Amendment of 2001 made in the Rules 1979."

¶15

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the issue in question is similar to that which has already attained finality, the present petition is also allowed partly in terms of judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2024 passed in special appeal No. 56 of 2022, Kamrul Haq and others versus State of U.P. and others.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 prabhat

¶17

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

Satendra Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Buddhilal Vs State of U.P. through Secy.

Amiy Krishna Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Ratnesh Kumar Trivedi and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 10 Others

General Manager Northern Railway Board and Anors. Vs Addl.Distt.Judge Lcuknow and 2 Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Deptt. ANUBHAG-1 Lko. and 2 Others