Ratnank Mishra vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Through Registrar General

Headnote:

Service Law – Regularisation – Discrimination – [Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 – Rules 8 (a)(i), 41 and 45; Article 142 of Constitution of India] – Ordinarily, regularization is a matter best left to policy decisions of employer and courts must exercise restraint in issuing directions – However, present case is exceptional – Appellants have rendered over a decade of service – Numerous similarly placed employees who were employed through same channel of appointment have been regularized – With a view to render complete justice in peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, this is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India to issue final operative directions – Artificial distinction drawn between Appellants and other similarly situated employees is discrimination which must be weeded out in pursuit of justice – Appellants have been caused grave prejudice by Respondents, in respect of rejection of their representations for regularization, though similarly placed employees have been granted the same, without there being any reasonable distinction between them – Appellants shall be reinstated on the post on which they were working at the time of their discontinuance – Respondent shall regularize service of Appellants after one year from their respective dates of appointment – During the period in which Appellants remained out of service, they would be entitled to all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, pay fixation, increments, retiral benefits (if applicable), etc., except for salary for the period that they have not worked. (Paras 30, 32 to 36)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals call into question correctness of judgments dated 14.10.2015 [In Special Appeal No. 411 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 412 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 410 of 2015] and 30.10.2015 [In Special Appeal No. 1109 of 2014] rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decision of Single Judge dated 31.08.2015 [In Service Single No. 5512 of 2013; Service Single No. 5287 of 2013; Service Single No. 5288 of 2013] and setting aside judgment dated 31.10.2014 [In Writ – A No. 55500 of 2013], respectively. The controversy arises because of non-regularization or non-confirmation employees (“Appellants”) on post of Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks by Respondent-High Court of Allahabad, despite serval similarly situated employees having been regularized from time to time.

The controversy in present case is that while numerous similarly situated employees appointed in similar fashion have been regularized from time to time, the Appellants contend that they were singled out without there being any reasonable justification and denied regularization.

Findings of Court:

Directions and observations made in present judgment are limited to facts and circumstances of these appeals, and shall in no manner or form be treated as a precedent.

Result : Appeals allowed with directions.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appointment of employees as Routine Grade Clerks under High Court service rules — Dispute over non-regularization despite regularization of similarly situated employees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )

2. Appellants claim hostile discrimination and violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 — Respondent contends ad-hoc appointments do not confer a right to regularization. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )

3. Distinction between categories of employees appointed through the same channel based on appointment letter stipulations is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violates Article 14. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )

4. Similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel must be treated equally; differential treatment without rational and intelligible differentia violates the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )

5. Appeals allowed — Appellants reinstated and regularized after one year from appointment with consequential benefits, except salary for the period not worked. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 )

6. Does differential treatment of employees appointed through the same channel for regularization violate constitutional guarantees?

Yes. When employees are appointed through the same recruitment channel, treating them differently based on superficial stipulations in appointment letters (such as labeling some as ad-hoc) without a rational and intelligible differentia is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )

7. Can a claim for regularization be denied based on subsequent amendments to service rules if similarly situated employees were already regularized?

No. If a distinction between similarly situated employees is found to be arbitrary and discriminatory, the denial of similar relief based on subsequent rule amendments is not acceptable. (Para 31 )

8. Under what circumstances can the court exercise inherent powers under Article 142 to direct regularization?

In exceptional cases where employees have rendered significant service and manifest discrimination is evident—specifically where similarly placed employees were regularized—the court may exercise Article 142 to render complete justice. (Para 33 )

JUDGMENT :

J.K. Maheshwari J.

1. These appeals call into question the correctness of the judgments dated 14.10.2015¹[In Special Appeal No. 411 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 412 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 410 of 2015] and 30.10.2015²[In Special Appeal No. 1109 of 2014] rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2015³[In Service Single No. 5512 of 2013; Service Single No. 5287 of 2013; Service Single No. 5288 of 2013] and setting aside judgment dated 31.10.2014⁴[In Writ – A No. 55500 of 2013], respectively. The controversy arises because of non-regularization or non-confirmation of the employees (hereinafter referred to as “Appellants”) on the post of Operator-cum- Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks by the Respondent i.e., The High Court of Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "High Court”), despite serval similarly situated employees having been regularized from time to time.

2. The appointments in the High Court are governed by the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1976 Rules’) framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The Appellants were appointed by the then Chief Justice of the High Court while exercising the powers conferred to him under Rule 8(a)(i) read with Rules 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules.

3. The controversy in the present case is that while numerous similarly situated employees appointed in similar fashion have been regularized from time to time, the Appellants contend that they were singled out without there being any reasonable justification and denied regularization. In this background, the power of the Chief Justice of the High Court to make recruitment to Class III posts flows from Rules 8 (a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules, which are relevant and are reproduced as thus:

“8. Sources of recruitment to class III post – The sources of recruitment to the various class III posts in the establishment shall be as follows:

(a)(i) Routine Grade Clerks – (I) By direct recruitment through competitive examination conducted by the appointing authority or in any manner so directed by Chief Justice.”

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

“41. Residuary powers. – Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters, incidental or ancillary to these rules, not specifically provided for herein or in regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided for:

Provided that if any such order relates to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, the same shall be made with the approval of the Governor of U.P.”

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

“45. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Chief Justice shall have the power to make such orders, as he may consider fit, in respect of recruitment, promotion, confirmation or any other matter.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The Appellants were engaged by the Respondent on ad-hoc basis as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant / Routine Grade Clerk, which are Class-III posts in the High Court. These appointments were made under the orders of the Chief Justice in exercise of powers under Rule 8(1)(a) read with 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules. A tabulated list of the Appellants along with their respective dates of appointment is produced hereafter for reference:

S.No.	Civil Appeal	Name of the Appellant	Date of Appointment
1.	Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022	Ratnank Mishra	08.12.2004
2.		Md. Faiq Naseem Siddiqui	08.12.2004
3.		Saif Husain	08.12.2004
4.		Ram Prakash Yadav	08.12.2004
5.		Ashish Kumar Srivastav	08.12.2004
6.	Civil Appeal No. 429 of 2022	Sanjeev Kumar Sharma	27.05.2005
7.	Civil Appeal No. 430 of 2022	Ajay Kumar Mishra	27.10.200

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

A better legal experience

2025 Supreme(SC) 2093