Back
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Adya Shankar Dwivedi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kshitij Shailendra, J.
Heard Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Prateek Singh, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
2. Various orders were passed in the present writ petition and perusal of order-sheets shows that time and again, original records summoned from the Department and received by this Court were also perused by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. Recently also the record was again summoned, as the case was taken up after considerable period of time. This case is being heard for the last two days and the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to peruse the record with the assistance of office of learned Chief Standing Counsel.
3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.10.2005, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected by the respondent no.3 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Banda on the ground that the petitioner was not continuing in service in the year 2001 and that he has worked intermittently in the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.
4. Various affidavits have been exchanged betw
The court determined that the continuity in services is vital for eligibility under regularization rules, rejecting any artificial breaks articulated by the State.
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.
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 failure to consider legitimate claims for regularization does not warrant redressal when procedural compliance is evident; repeated litigation is discouraged.
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....
Regularization of employees with irregular appointments can be upheld when no fraud or misrepresentation exists.
Welfare policies for employee regularization must be applied fairly to long-serving workers, emphasizing equitable treatment irrespective of technical cutoff dates.
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
