Back
Right of Consideration for Regularization Survives Employee's Death, Heirs Entitled:
In a strongly worded judgment that censures bureaucratic defiance, the has ruled that the right of consideration for regularization does not perish with an employee's death. Justice Indrajeet Shukla ordered that deceased work charge employee Rifakat Hussain be from the date he became eligible, with all consequential benefits flowing to his , and awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 against the State.
A Decade of Litigation Over 18 Years of Service
Hasan Ahmad, the petitioner, sought justice for his late father Rifakat Hussain, who served as a Junior Assistant in the Work Charge Establishment of the , Block Hardoi, from until his sudden demise on — a service spanning over 18 years.
Under the , a seniority list was prepared on , featuring Rifakat Hussain at serial no. 58. When the sanctioned 172 Group-C posts on , a directed employees to appear on . Tragically, Rifakat Hussain died on — mere days before his scheduled appearance. The regularization exercise concluded in January 2013, with similarly situated employees regularized, but his claim was left dangling for over a decade.
Three Rounds of Litigation, Repeated Defiance
The petitioner's mother, Smt. Zahida Begum, first approached the High Court in . The Court directed the Director and Chief Engineer to consider regularization in light of the Division Bench decision in . The authorities rejected the claim, citing the employee's death and the alleged inapplicability of the to work charge employees.
When the matter returned in , the Court set aside that order with a categorical mandate: if persons junior to the deceased had been regularized, the same benefit must be extended. Yet, in March 2023, the authorities passed an order repeating substantially the same reasoning — prompting the present petition and the Court's ire.
"A Standing Monument of Stubborn Attitude"
The High Court pulled no punches in characterizing the impugned order:
"The order impugned dated is nothing but a standing monument of the stubborn attitude of respondent authorities, attempting and endeavoring to defy the majesty of this Court, which is ."
The Court further held that the finding of
"no junior employee being regularized"
was "vague and uncertain" since the order disclosed neither the serial number nor the name of the last person regularized from the seniority list. Critically, the Court observed that an employee possesses an independent right of consideration for regularization — regardless of whether any junior had been regularized.
and the Question Before the Court
Addressing the fundamental legal question — whether a person's legal right perishes with his death when it devolves upon surviving — the Court drew upon authoritative precedents. Citing Ratnagiri Gas and Power v. RDS Projects (2013) and West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray (2007), the Court explained that "" does not require personal ill-will, but denotes action taken without lawful justification or in disregard of the statutory scheme. The repeated rejection on reasoning already quashed constituted such malice.
While acknowledging the Full Bench decision in Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. (2010) — holding that work charge employees are not "Government Servants" under the 1974 Rules — the Court distinguished the present case, following the Division Bench ruling in Kuldeep Thakur . Where an employee's right to regularization had crystallized under the applicable scheme and the process had been set in motion during his lifetime, that right does not stand extinguished by untimely death.
A Landmark Ruling on
"The right of regularization when accrued, travels with the person and in their absence, survives through their . The State, being a model employer, is bound to uphold not merely the letter of the contract, but the spirit of fairness, equality and compassion."
Rather than remitting the matter for a fifth round of consideration — which the Court deemed futile given the authorities' blatant disregard for judicial mandates — the Court declared that the deceased employee
"shall be
from the date on which he became eligible for such benefit."
All consequential entitlements, including monetary benefits, must be paid to the
.
What Happens Next
The second respondent was directed to consider Hasan Ahmad's claim for under the . Where such consideration falls outside his competence due to the five-year limitation period or other valid reasons, the matter must be forwarded to the under Rule 5(iii) read with Rule 10 of the 1974 Rules — which empower the Government to relax time limits where is shown. The entire exercise must be completed within two months.
The Court also awarded Rs. 50,000 in costs to the petitioner and directed the order be communicated to the Secretary of the through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, within 24 hours. The conduct of the second respondent was formally censured with a clear warning for future vigilance.
The judgment serves as a stern reminder to administrative authorities that judicial directions cannot be circumvented by repeating reasoning already set aside, and that the law,
"while clothed in formalities of procedure, must never lose sight of its humane purpose."
