Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
Ramesh Kumar Pathak @ Ramesh Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Horticulture Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others - Respondent
Special Appeal No. - 96 of 2024
Decided On : 07-05-2024
REGULARIZATION - EMPLOYMENT LAW - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SECTION 226; UTTAR PRADESH REGULARIZATION OF DAILY WAGES APPOINTMENTS ON GROUP 'D' POSTS RULES, 2001 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows for the issuance of writs for enforcement of fundamental rights, and the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001. The court interpreted these provisions to emphasize the right of eligible daily wage employees to be considered for regularization based on their continuous service and the existence of vacancies at the time the rules were enacted. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a fresh consideration for regularization from the date the rules came into effect, rather than being denied based on the timing of previous regularizations of other employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his request for regularization of service from 2003 instead of 2010. He had been working as a daily wage employee since 1986 and sought to be regularized under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, which he argued entitled him to consideration for regularization from the date the rules were enacted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition was based on unsustainable reasoning. The court emphasized that the petitioner had a right to be considered for regularization based on the provisions of the Rules 2001, which were not adequately addressed in the previous judgment. The court noted that the petitioner had been continuously engaged and should have been considered for regularization from the cut-off date specified in the rules.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization of his services from 2003 based on the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, and whether the rejection of his claim was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a fresh consideration for regularization based on the eligibility criteria set forth in the Rules 2001. The court clarified that the mere fact that other employees were regularized at a later date did not negate the petitioner's right to be considered for regularization from the date the rules came into effect, provided he met the eligibility criteria.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Writ Court and the order rejecting the petitioner's claim, directing the concerned authority to take a fresh decision regarding the petitioner's regularization in accordance with the provisions of the Rules 2001.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. By means of this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 05.04.2024 passed in Writ A No.2741 of 2024 which reads as under :-
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.02.2024, whereby the petitioner's request for granting the benefit of regularization with effect from 2003 instead of regularization with effect from the date of order dated 10.09.2010, has been rejected.
3. The petitioner's services on a Group-D post of Mali were regularized along with the services of six other employees by means of an order dated 10.09.2010, with effect from the date of passing of the order.
4. The petitioner and some other persons filed Writ-A No.3068 of 2011 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to regularize services of the petitioners with effect from 2001 when the relevant Regularization Rules were notified. The said writ petition was disposed of by means of an order dated 01.11.2023 giving the petitioners liberty to file a fresh individual representation regarding their grievance.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.11.2023 praying that the benefit of regularization of service be granted to him with effect from 2003 since when he is working against a vacant post. The said representation has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 13.02.2024.
6. It is stated in the impugned rejection order that the petitioner used to work as a daily wage labour for rendering assistance to malis in taking care of plants and trees and he was given wages for the post he worked. The petitioner was not appointed as per the prescribed rules by issue of an advertisement, under a transparent process. The petitioner was paid minimum wages in compliance of the orders passed by this court with effect from the year 2003. The daily wagers Shiv Kumar and Gautam, who were senior to the petitioner have been regularized with effect from 11.09.2014 and 10.09.2016. Therefore, the Deputy Director rejected his representation holding that there was no ground for granting benefit of regularization to the petitioner with effect from 2003.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following passage of a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jag Lal and others Vs. Director, Horticulture, U.P.: 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2528:-
"25. Repeated directions were given by this Court in the order dated 12.12.1995, as well as subsequent orders passed in these writ petitions to give petitioners regular wages in the minimum of the pay scale and allowances. Respondents violated the orders and are facing action in contempt. The same Horticulture Department of the State Government, however, accepted the orders passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in group of cases led by Writ Petition No. 6378 (S/S) of 1997, between Bechan All and Ors. v. Government of U.P., and that the Director of Horticulture by his order dated 17.2.2001 annexed in Annexure-I in Writ Petition No. 37136 of 1999, directed payment of minimum of pay scale to the daily wages in the department. These petitioners were, however, arbitrarily discriminated. Having accepted similar orders passed by Lucknow Bench the Department could not have ignored the claims of the petitioners supported by similar orders. All the petitioners are, therefore, entitled to regular pay scale with effect from 17.2.2001 i.e., the date when State Government accepted the claims of similarly situated employees."
8. The aforesaid judgment nowhere lays down the law that a person who has worked on daily wages can be regularized with retrospective effect. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is of no help to the petitioner.
9. The petitioner has failed to
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....
The right to regularization under the Rules of 2016 is based on continuous engagement prior to the cut-off date and possession of requisite qualifications, regardless of initial appointment validity.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' may not apply to temporary employees, and unexplained delay in approaching the court can impact the decision.
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.
Daily wager - Regularisation - As per procedure appointing authority was required to prepare an eligibility list of candidates working on daily wages, on work charge or on contract in Department, arr....
Policy for regularization must honor prior engagements if criteria are met, despite subsequent changes in policy restricting claims.
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.
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
