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

2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 1054

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
VIRESH CHANDRA SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS – Respondent
WRIA 53371 / 2010



##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 53371 of 2010

Viresh Chandra Sharma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

(Sl. No. 249.3)

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Pradeept Kumar Shahi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the

State is present.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of

minimum pay scale as well as regularization to the petitioner. In the writ

petition, petitioner has claimed that the petitioner was working as Daily

Wager in the Forest Department since 1990 i.e. prior to cut off date

29.6.1991 and was still continuing in job at the time of filing of the instant

petition on 6.8.2010.

3. In the counter affidavit, respondents have denied the aforesaid

submission. Thereafter, in the rejoinder affidavit, petitioner has brought

on record the seniority list dated 24.2.2010, prepared by the Divisional

Director, Social Forestry Department, Moradabad in which the name of

the petitioner find place at Sl. No. 11. The aforesaid seniority list

categorically states that the persons, who were working prior to

29.6.1991 and were continuously working till 21.10.2001. Thus from the

aforesaid seniority list prepared by the Divisional Director, Social

Forestry Department, Moradabad, it is categorically admitted that the

petitioner was working prior to 29.6.1991 and was continuously working

till the preparation of the seniority list. Subsequent thereto, the case of the

petitioner is that after the issuance of notice in the instant petition, the

respondents have orally removed the petitioner from service. Therefore,

##PAGE2##

WRIA No. 53371 of 2010

2

he has moved an application for interim relief by making out the

categorical allegation that he was orally removed and prayed for interim

direction to allow the petitioner to continue in the job. The aforesaid

application is unrebutted. Thus the averments made in the said application

that the petitioner was orally removed subsequent to the issuance of

notice by this Court and the same has not been contradicted or rebutted by

the respondents. In such view of the matter, it would be presumed that the

petitioner was illegally removed without any rhyme and reason despite

the pendency of the instant writ petition.

4. From the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was

working prior to cut of date on 29.6.1991 till 21.12.2001 and has also

continued till filing of the instant writ petition.

5. In such view of the matter, the petitioner was eligible for

regularization in terms of the 'Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily

Wager, Appointment on Group-D Posts Rules, 2001' (hereinafter

referred to as 2001 Rules) and once the petitioner was found eligible for

regularization then in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in

State of U.P. Vs.Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337, petitioner was also

entitled for minimum pay scale from the date he became eligible for

regularization.

6. In such view of the matter, the instant petition is allowed with the

following directions:-

(a) The petitioner, herein, shall report before the Divisional Director,

Social Forestry Department, Moradabad- Respondent No. 3 within two

weeks and shall be reinstated with continuity in service and shall perform

his duties as may be entrusted to him by the Respondent No. 3.

(b) The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of minimum pay

scale, if to the petitioner as per applicable rates time to time w.e.f.

21.2.2002 till date of the order within a period of eight weeks from the

date of production of certified copy of this order. The respondents shall

continue to pay the minimum pay scale, till the petitioner is regularized or

superannuated.

##PAGE3##

WRIA No. 53371 of 2010

3

(c) The respondents are further directed to consider the claim of the

petitioner for regularization as he has already been found eligible for

regularization in t

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