SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Ramashankar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 14574 of 2021
Decided On : 10-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rampyare Lal Srivastava, Subash Chandra Srivastava
For the Respondents: M.J. Akhtar, M.Z. Hoda

The court ruled that employees' classification should not deny them regularization rights when they have continuously served in essential roles, emphasizing the need for fair treatment in employment practices.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work-Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on 'Group-C' and 'Group-D' Posts Rules, 2016 - Rule-6 - Regularization of daily wages employees - Petitioner engaged since 23.01.2001, eligible for regularization due to uninterrupted service, but denied same by the Executive Officer based on classification as outsourced - The court found the rationale for denial arbitrary and exploitative, noting the misclassification as an employee circumventing rights - The petitioner’s continuous service supports his claim under the Regularization Rules. (Paras 2, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15)

(B) Employment Status - Misclassification of employees for avoiding obligations - The court highlighted the need to rectify misclassification, ensuring workers receive fair treatment and benefits due to their roles being integral and necessary for public service functions. (Paras 12-27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, working as a daily wage electrician since 23.01.2001, was denied regularization based on an arbitrary interpretation regarding his employment status. The introduction of a contracting agency post-2014 was deemed a strategy to evade regularization.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order denying regularization was quashed, directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner according to seniority.

Issues: The key issues included whether the petitioner’s classification as an outsourced employee justified the denial of regularization and whether the Regularization Rules applied.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of assessing employment status based on the nature of duties rather than labels, reinforcing workers' rights and the obligation of employers to adhere to employment regulations.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. Heard Shri Rampyare Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri M. J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4.

2. By the impugned order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Zamania, District Ghazipur the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been declined on the footing that the petitioner is working as an outsourced employee and is not covered by the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work-Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on 'Group-C' and 'Group-D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter the 'Regularization Rules').

3. The petitioner was engaged as a daily wager in the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad as an Electrician w.e.f. 23.01.2001. The services of the petitioner have been uninterrupted and continuous since the date of his appointment.

4. The entitlement of regularization of the petitioner flows from Rule-6 of Regularization Rules is quoted herein under:-

"6. (1) Any person who:

(i) was directly engaged or employed or deployed or working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in a Government Department on Group 'C' or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) on or before December 31, 2001 and is still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of the commencement of these rules;

(ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages or on work charge or on contract, under the relevant service rules and, subject to the provisions of above mentioned rules 2 and 5, shall be considered for regular appointment on Group 'C' or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of the commencement of these rules, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders.

(2) In making regular appointments under these rules, reservations for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and other categories, shall be made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, and the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, as amended from time to time, and the orders of the Government in force at the time of regularisation under these rules.

(3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee in accordance with the relevant provisions of service rules.

(4) The appointing authority shall, having regard to the provisions of sub-rule (1), prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, arranged in order of seniority as determined from the date of engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages, on work charge or on contract and, if two or more persons are engaged or employed or deployed together, from the order in which their names are arranged in the said engagement or employment or deployment order. The list shall be placed before the Selection Committee alongwith the character rolls and such other relevant records, pertaining to them, as may be considered necessary to assess their suitability.

(5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records, referred to in sub-rule (4), and if considers necessary, it may interview the candidates also to assess their suitability.

(6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidate arranging their names

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top