Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ABDUL MOIN, J.
Anand Kumar – Appellant
versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Devlp. Lko. And Ors. – Respondent
WRIT - A No. – 23739, 22141 of 2021
Decided on : 29-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging termination and seeking regularization - Petitioner appointed on contract basis in 1998, regularized on 23.06.2021, but terminated on grounds of irregularity and ongoing special appeals - Court quashed orders dated 26.08.2021 and 28.07.2021, reinforcing that rights of employees continuing post-2016 to regularization cannot be denied. (Paras 35, 36, 38)
(B) Employment Law - Regularization of services - The court emphasized that once regularized, termination cannot occur without valid grounds, particularly when the employee has been in continuous service since 1998. (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, initially appointed on a contract basis, challenged termination orders and sought regularization under Rules, 2016 after being initially regularized on 23.06.2021. (Para 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found the cancellation of regularization orders unjust, highlighting that the petitioner had a right to be regularized based on continuous service post-2016. (Paras 35, 36)
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the termination orders and the applicability of the regularization rules. (Para 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the regularization order could not be revoked without just cause, especially considering the petitioner’s long service and the context of the Rules, 2016. (Paras 30, 38)
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Abdul Moin, J.
1. Heard Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri Namit Sharma along with Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsels for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.
2. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties contend that the issue involved in both the writ petitions is same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear and decide both the writ petitions together by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ - A No. - 23739 of 2021 are being taken into consideration.
3. This is a peculiar case and peculiarities are indicated in the body of the judgment.
4. Instant petition has been filed praying for following main reliefs :-
dated 26.8.2021 passed by the opposite party No.3 and, impugned letter/ order dated 28.7.2021 issued by the opposite party No.1, as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 respectively to writ petition.ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the oral termination order dated 1.9.2021 passed by the opposite party No.3. iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work and discharge duties on the post of Lighter/ Porter (Class-IV post) in Street Light Department of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and pay him salary regularly in pursuance to the regularization order dated 23.6.2021 (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition)."
5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on a contract basis in Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on 01.09.1998 and had continued for sufficiently long time. A Government Order dated 23.07.2012 was issued by Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and addressed to all District Magistrates, all Municipal Commissioners, etc. for terminating the services of the employees engaged in an irregular manner or on contract/temporary basis.
6. The said Government Order was challenged by the petitioner along with several others by filing various writ petitions. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is Writ Petition No. 6755 (S/S) of 2012 in re: Vinay Kumar Shukla & 32 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
7. All the writ petitions were decided by means of judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 leading being writ petition No. 4334 (S/S) of 2012 in re: Neeraj Babu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors whereby the writ petitions were dismissed. The copy of the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 is Annexure No. 10 to the petition. However, despite dismissal of writ petition, the petitioner continued to work and discharge duties under the respondents.
8. Certain persons, being aggrieved by the said judgment, filed various special appeals. One of the Special Appeals was Special Appeal (Defective) No. 96 of 2018 in re: Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14.03.2018, a copy of which is Annexure No. 11 to the petition, directed for maintenance of status quo as it existed on the date of judgment of the writ Court to be continued to be maintained.
9. Incidentally, the petitioner did not prefer any special appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 at that stretch of time.
10. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2020 the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18342 (S/S) of 2020 in re: Ajay Bajpai & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., in which the petitioner was petitioner no. 4, praying for a direction to the respondent no.1 i.e. the State to take decision for creation of supernumerary posts for the regularization of the petitioners' services working in the street light department of Lucknow considering the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Persons working on Daily Wages or Work Charged or on Contract in Government Departments on Group - C and Group D Posts (outside the Purview of U.P. Public Serv
The court affirmed that employees continuing post-2016 have a right to regularization, and termination orders must be based on valid grounds.
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.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization after completing ten years of service on sanctioned and vacant posts, as supported by constitutional....
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 High Court directed the regularization of long-serving employees based on the principles established in Umadevi's case, emphasizing the need for lawful government discretion in employment matters....
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
