Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT
Mohd. Ashique – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. Heard Shri Jamil Ahamad Azmi, learned counsel assisted by Shri Mohd. Umar Farrukh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper on 24.09.1983. By the impugned order dated 09.05.2022 the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected on the footing that he was minor on the date of his appointment.
3. These facts are established from a perusal of the pleadings inter se the parties and materials in the record. The petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper on 24.09.1983. The petitioner worked continuously on the aforesaid post for more than 39 years. The petitioner was working against a substantive post. The job was perennial in nature. The record of service of the petitioner is unblemished. But for the fact of his minority at the time of appointment, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized in service.
4. The question now arises as to whether the aforesaid infirmity in the appointment of the petitioner is sufficient reason to decline his claim for regularization after rendering almost four decades of service. To examine the correctness of the impugned
Irregular appointments may be regularized after prolonged continuous service, as technical grounds cannot undermine substantive employment rights.
An appointment made on the basis of administrative exigency and not vitiated by faults such as nepotism, bias, or malafides, could be regularized. Regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment, and ....
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.
Long-term employees engaged in continuous service are entitled to regularization and benefits even post-retirement if their claims remain pending during their service, subject to compliance with appl....
Regularization of services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
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
