State's 'U-Turn' on Daily-Wager's Regularization Slammed; Entitled to Back Wages and Pension: Allahabad High Court - 2025-04-10

State's 'U-Turn' Slammed: Allahabad HC Orders Regularization, 75% Back Wages for Daily-Wager After 30-Year Battle

Allahabad, UP – In a significant ruling that underscores the obligations of the state as a model employer, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a 2010 order denying regularization to a former daily-wage supervisor of the Public Works Department (PWD). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar not only directed the ex post facto regularization of the petitioner, Sunil Kumar Seth, but also awarded him 75% of back wages from 1992 until his superannuation, along with full pensionary benefits.

The court heavily criticized the department's officials for their "casual approach" and a sudden "U-turn" that contradicted their own findings, ultimately depriving the employee of his rightful claim for decades.

A Long Fight for Parity

The case revolved around Sunil Kumar Seth, who was engaged as a daily-wage Supervisor (Diploma Holder) with the PWD in 1988. His services were discontinued in January 1992, following a departmental policy to terminate daily-wagers appointed after January 1, 1990. However, Seth, having been appointed before the cut-off date, challenged his termination. He pointed out that a similarly situated colleague, Raghvendra Dixit, was allowed to continue in service and was later regularized in 2006.

In 1992, the High Court passed an interim order directing that Seth be allowed to continue working. This writ petition was finally disposed of in 2016, with the court directing the PWD to consider Seth's claim on par with Raghvendra Dixit.

The Department's Contradictory Stance

The petitioner's counsel, Siddharth Khare, argued that despite the court's clear directive, the department arbitrarily rejected his client's claim. The judgment highlights a crucial sequence of events that exposed the department's flawed decision-making process:

• Initial Report Favors Petitioner: Following the 2016 court order, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Shahjahanpur, submitted a detailed report on April 1, 2010, confirming that "both the employees stood on same footing" and there was "no point of difference between the two." The report unequivocally supported Seth's claim for parity with Dixit.
• The 'U-Turn': While the matter was pending with the State Government for guidance, the Chief Engineer took a sudden "U-turn." On May 13, 2010, he directed the Executive Engineer to pass a final order, but this time, he instructed him to cite the differences between the two employees based on an old affidavit from a contempt petition.
• The Impugned Order: Just four days later, on May 17, 2010, the Executive Engineer passed the impugned order, mechanically rejecting Seth's claim. He now cited differences in appointment dates and Seth’s break in service, completely ignoring his own prior report that had established parity.

The respondents maintained that Seth was discontinued due to the non-availability of work and post, a reason the court found discriminatory and unsubstantiated.

Court's Rebuke and Legal Reasoning

Justice Ajit Kumar found the department's actions to be a clear case of non-application of mind and an attempt to circumvent the court's earlier orders. The court posed two key questions: whether a distinguishing feature existed between the two employees and whether the Chief Engineer was justified in directing the Executive Engineer to pass the final order while guidance from the government was awaited.

The court answered both questions in favor of the petitioner.

"The then Chief Executive Engineer without even discussing his own report dated 1st April, 2010 held that petitioner’s appointment was different from that Raghvendra Dixit... and so the claim was not tenable," the judgment noted, highlighting the contradictory stand.

The court further observed that the Executive Engineer passed the final order without any independent application of mind or any written guidance from the government, instead merely reproducing the Chief Engineer's instructions.

The judgment also referenced the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group ‘D’ posts Rules, 2001, noting that the petitioner was working on the cut-off date and was wrongly discontinued in 1992. "If he was not reinstated, respondents were only to be blamed," the court declared.

Final Decision and Implications

Holding the department's conduct to be discriminatory, the court set aside the rejection order of May 17, 2010. It issued the following directives:

1. Regularization: The petitioner shall be regularized ex post facto from the date his colleague, Raghvendra Dixit, was regularized, with all notional benefits of pay scale and grade.
2. Pension: His pension shall be fixed as per the old pension scheme applicable in 2001, and he shall be paid regular pension from his date of retirement.
3. Back Wages: He is entitled to 75% of the arrears of salary from 1992 until his age of superannuation.
4. Timeline and Penalty: All arrears must be paid within two months. Failure to do so will attract an interest rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding dues.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to government departments that they cannot arbitrarily deny the rights of employees, especially when courts have established principles of parity and fair treatment.