SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(All) 713

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B. Misra, J.
Triloki Nath Dwivedi, Gajadhar Prasad Dwivedi
Versus
District Judge
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 7867 of 2000
Decided On : 09 April 2004
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 7867 Of 2000

Advocates Appeared:
J.P.MISHRA, K.R.Sirohi, Ravi Kant, S.N.Singh, Shashi Nandan, SUDHIR AGRAWAL,

Ad-hoc employees can be considered for regular appointment based on statutory Rules and provisions, ensuring fair treatment and observance of fundamental rights.

Headnote:

Regularisation - Appointment of Ad-hoc Employees - Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On posts outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 - Rules, 2001 - Rule 269 of General Rules (Civil)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought quashing of an advertisement for recruitment and mandamus for regularisation and salary payment. They were appointed as ad-hoc employees and claimed entitlement to regularisation based on Rules, 2001 and Rule 269 of General Rules (Civil). The court modified the interim order to allow fresh recruitment and directed consideration of petitioners for regular appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners, appointed as ad-hoc employees, were entitled to be considered for regular appointment based on Rules, 2001 and Rule 269. It allowed the writ petition, directing consideration of the petitioners for regular appointment and modification of the interim order for fresh recruitment.

Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of ad-hoc employees to regularisation under Rules, 2001 and Rule 269, and the modification of the interim order for fresh recruitment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that ad-hoc employees could be considered for regular appointment based on Rules, 2001 and Rule 269. It emphasized the need for fair treatment and observance of statutory provisions in regularisation matters.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing consideration of the petitioners for regular appointment and modification of the interim order for fresh recruitment. No order as to cost was made.

R. B. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition prayer has been made for quashing the advertisement dated 5. 2. 2000 issued by the respondent for recruitment to the class III posts of ministerial cadre with further prayer for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondent to treat the petitioners as regular in service on the posts held by them and for payment of salary admissible to the regular employees.

( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are (i) the petitioners No. I and 2 namely Triloki Nath Dwivedi and Santosh Kumar Srivastava were appointed on 19. 2. 1991 and 1. 4. 199. 1 respectively in District Judgeship of Mirzapur as paid apprentice on ad-hoc basis @ of rs. 900/- per month and were subsequently transferred to Judgeship of Basti and joined there on 20. 9. 1994 and 13:9. 1994 respectively, since then they are working as class III employees and are being paid salary as a regular employees; (ii) Petitioner No. 3 Sri Ajai Kumar Rai was initially appointed as Stenographer (Hindi) in Gorakhpur Judgeship on 5. 2. 1991 and was transferred to judgeship of Basti and had joined in Judgeship of Basti on 23. 9. 1994 and since then he is continuously working; (iii) Petitioner No. 4 Sri Govind Saran Lal and petitioner No. 5 Sri Anuj kumar were initially appointed on fixed pay of Rs. 950/- per month as Copyist on 9. 1. 1991 and 3. 9. 1990 respectively land are working on the Same post continuously without any break; (iv)Petitioner No. 6 Sri Sanjay Kumar Sonkar was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of paid apprentice in Lucknow Judgeship on 17. 12. 1990 and was subsequently transferred to judgeship of Basti on 12. 9. 1994 and since then he is regularly working there.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners they were appointed in accordance to Rule 269 of General Rules (Civil) which empowers the District Judge to make appointment in emergency. Rule 269 is reproduced as below : "269. District Judge to be informed when work increases for (opyists - If in any court, copying work increases so much (hat the existing staff of copyists cannot cope with it; the head copyists shall at once report to the District Judge, in the case of the court of the District Judge through the Munsarim of that court, and in the case of any other cowl, through the presiding officer of the court. The District Judge shall ascertain whether any increase of establishment is necessary; and if an increase he necessary in his opinion, he shall report the matter for the orders of the high Court. In urgent cases, the District Judge may employ extra copyists and report to the High court. "

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners they were appointed by proper selection committee by respective district Judges prior to June, 1991 and at the time of their initial appointment as adhoc they were in possession of required qualifications for appointment to the class III posts, therefore, they are entitled to be considered and treated/appointed as regular employee to the existing class III posts in reference to U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (on the post outside the purview of public Service (Commission) Rules, 1979 in short called "rules, 1979" as amended from time to time and in view of the rules, 2001 which came into effect on 20th December, 2001 i. e. Uttar pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001. The relevant provisions are given as below : 1. (1) These Rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointment (On posts outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001. (2) They shall come into force at once. 2. In the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On posts outside the Purview of the Public Service commission Rules, 1979 in Rule 4 for existing sub Rule (1) set out in column I below, the sub-rule as set out in column 2 shall he substituted, namely :-

"column-1 existin




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top