Back
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
Bhawani Prasad Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru Prin. Secy. P. W. D. Lucknow – Respondent
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 fro
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
