IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Bhawani Prasad Sahu And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow and Ors. – Respondents
Writ A. No. 4476 of 2019, Writ A. No. 868 of 2012, Writ A. No. 12167 of 2017, Writ A. No. 23908 of 2017, Writ A. No. 31385 of 2018, Writ A. No. 34756 of 2018, Writ A. No. 36866 of 2018, Writ A. No. 5116 of 2019, Writ A. No. 5236 of 2019
Decided On : 17-05-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages (Appointment on Group D Posts) Rules, 2001 – Writ Petition – Framed regularization rules – Order of regularization – Challenged order – Held, Court find that impugned orders do not violate in any manner statutory prescription or any judgment of this Court or Supreme Court – However, since some of petitioners are retired or they are on verge of retirement, taking away benefit which has been conferred on them because of interim order would not be justified and, therefore, it is provided that while implementing impugned orders Government should ensure that benefit already conferred on petitioners or similarly situated persons should not be withdrawn except that they should be treated to have been regularized with effect from respective dates as per impugned order – Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
1. This bunch of writ petition leading one being Writ Petition No.4476(SS) of 2019 has been preferred assailing the order dated 11.10.2018/12.10.2018 passed by the Executive Engineer, Provisional Division, Public Works Department, Lucknow (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioners’ regularization orders dated 25.06.2013 regularizing their services with effect from 02.07.2003 have been made ineffective and the order of regularization has been revisited as per fresh seniority list dated 21.04.2018.
The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 12.10.2018 whereby the petitioners' date of regularization has been altered/changed from 02.07.2003 to the year of 2011.
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.34756 of 2018 have also prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list taking into consideration the Government Order dated 17.04.2003 inasmuch as the State Government, in the meantime, had framed regularization rules namely Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages (Appointment on Group D Posts) Rules, 2001.
2. The petitioners were initially engaged as Daily Wagers from time to time considering the exigency of work on the posts of Wireman, Electrician, Helper, Mate, Fire Alarm Operator, A.C. Operator etc., in the Department of Public Works Department. Some of the petitioners preferred a Writ Petition No.1427(SS) of 1997: Ram Swaroop & Anr versus State of UP with a prayer to grant them regular pay scale of Class IV post and consider them for regularization. This Court passed an interim order dated 21.02.1997 whereby direction was given for payment of minimum of pay scale to which regular employees of the category of the petitioners were being paid salary, subject to verification of length of service of the petitioners in the writ petition.
3. The State Government, in the meantime, framed rules namely Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages (Appointment on Group D Posts) Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2001). Rule 4 of the Rules, 2001 provides that any person, who was appointed on daily wage basis prior to 29.06.1991 and is continuing in service, as such on the date of commencement of rules i.e. 21.12.2001 and possess requisite qualifications shall be considered for regularization.
4. In pursuance to the promulgation of the said rules, the State Government took a policy decision vide Government Order dated 17.04.2003 to regularize all such persons, who had been engaged prior to 29.06.1991, as daily wages/ work charge agents by preparing a combined seniority list as per the availability of the vacancies.
5. Another Government Order dated 11.06.2003 was issued in continuation of the earlier Government Order for proceeding with the intent of regularization process. Thereafter, an office memorandum dated 20.06.2003 was issued whereby combined seniority list of daily wagers, working in Public Works Department was issued.
6. A decision was taken on 02.07.2003 to regularize 54 persons from the seniority list dated 20.06.2003 trade-wise. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.07.2003, a decision was taken to cancel the seniority list dated 20.06.2003. 54 persons, who got regularized on 02.07.2003, as per the seniority list dated 20.06.2003, being aggrieved by the cancellation of the seniority list and order dated 06.07.2003 cancelling their regularization, preferred a Writ Petition No.4302(SS) of 2003: Bharat Singh & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors before this Court. This Court vide order dated 24.07.2003 stayed the order dated 06.07.2003. On the strength of the said interim order dated 24.07.2003, aforesaid employees continued in employment as regular employees.
7. In the meantime, Writ Petition No.1427(SS) of 1997 preferred by Ram Swaroop & Ors was disposed of finally on 13.11.2003 with a direction to the respondents to consider their cases for regularization in accordance with the existing rules with effect from th
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors.
Registrar General of India vs V.Thippa Setty : 1998(8) SCC 690
Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela
Daily wage employees who meet the eligibility criteria under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, are entitled to be considered for regularizat....
Regularization of services must be from the date of initial appointment for similarly situated employees to avoid discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court established that daily-wage employees engaged before the cut-off date are entitled to regularization under the Rules of 2016, regardless of initial appointment irregularities.
Regularization of daily-wage or casual employees is not an automatic right upon completing 240 days of service. It remains contingent upon the availability of sanctioned posts and adherence to govern....
The extension of the policy for the private respondents was arbitrary and the regularization violated the 2010 Rules. The Court emphasized that no employee can be permanently appointed on a public po....
The court established that employees cannot claim regularization unless they are working against sanctioned posts, as per the Jharkhand Regularization Rules of 2015 and 2019.
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.