2003 Supreme(All) 1173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunil Ambwani, J.
JAG LAL - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE, U. P. GOVERNMENT - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 16909 Of 2003
Decided On : 05/21/2003

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regularisation in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages appointments on Group d Posts Rules, 2001 and are also entitled to regular wages in the regular pay scale with effect from 17. 2. 2001.

Headnote:

Regularisation - Class-IV Employees - U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages appointment on Group d Posts Rules 2001 - The court found that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regularisation in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages appointments on Group d Posts Rules, 2001 and are also entitled to regular wages in the regular pay scale with effect from 17. 2. 2001. The Appointment Authority erred in law and acted against the Rules of 2001, and ignoring the services rendered by the petitioners on daily wages in the same department prior to the establishment of the Centre and adopted a wholly illegal approach, de horse the Rules in fixing their seniority on the basis of number of days of work. The Appointing Authority further erred in law in ignoring the claims of six persons who had artificial breaks in service, although they were continuing in services on the date of commencement of the Rules. The candidature of such persons could not have been ignored by the respondents. The writ petitions arc thus allowed and in the aforesaid fact and circumstances, determination of petitioners seniority by the Appointing Authority as well as the recommendations of regularisation made by the Selection Committee on 7. 1. 2003 are declared to be illegal, inoperative and are set-aside. The respondents are directed to re-determine the seniority of the 22 candidates for regularisation and to consider them for regularisation afresh in accordance with the Rules of 2001.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, working as Class-IV Employees as 'mali' on daily wages, sought regularisation of their services with respondents and for payment of regular wages. A process of regularisation was undertaken in which twelve Malis, including petitioners, were recommended to be regularised by a Regularisation Committee under the U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages appointment on Group d Posts Rules 2001. The petitioners challenged the validity of the process of regularisation and the method and manner in which their seniority was determined for the purposes of regularisation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regularisation in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages appointments on Group d Posts Rules, 2001 and are also entitled to regular wages in the regular pay scale with effect from 17. 2. 2001. The Appointment Authority erred in law and acted against the Rules of 2001, and ignoring the services rendered by the petitioners on daily wages in the same department prior to the establishment of the Centre and adopted a wholly illegal approach, de horse the Rules in fixing their seniority on the basis of number of days of work. The Appointing Authority further erred in law in ignoring the claims of six persons who had artificial breaks in service, although they were continuing in services on the date of commencement of the Rules. The candidature of such persons could not have been ignored by the respondents.

Issues: The issues revolved around the regularisation of Class-IV Employees working as 'mali' on daily wages, the validity of the process of regularisation, and the method and manner in which their seniority was determined for the purposes of regularisation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regularisation in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages appointments on Group d Posts Rules, 2001 and are also entitled to regular wages in the regular pay scale with effect from 17. 2. 2001. The Appointment Authority erred in law and acted against the Rules of 2001, and ignoring the services rendered by the petitioners on daily wages in the same department prior to the establishment of the Centre and adopted a wholly illegal approach, de horse the Rules in fixing their seniority on the basis of number of days of work. The Appointing Authority further erred in law in ignoring the claims of six persons who had artificial breaks in service, although they were continuing in services on the date of commencement of the Rules. The candidature of such persons could not have been ignored by the respondents.

Final Decision: The writ petitions are allowed and in the aforesaid fact and circumstances, determination of petitioners seniority by the Appointing Authority as well as the recommendations of regularisation made by the Selection Committee on 7. 1. 2003 are declared to be illegal, inoperative and are set-aside. The respondents are directed to re-determine the seniority of the 22 candidates for regularisation and to consider them for regularisation afresh in accordance with the Rules of 2001.