U.P. Regularisation Rules Don't Apply to DRDA Employees, Allahabad High Court Rules

The Allahabad High Court has held that employees of District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs) cannot claim the benefit of the U.P. Regularisation 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 , because DRDAs are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act and operate under schemes of the Government of India.

Justice Anish Kumar Gupta dismissed a petition filed by 34 individuals who had been engaged by DRDAs in various districts between 1986 and 2003 as Data Entry Operators, Computer Operators, and Programmers. Their primary prayer was for regularisation on the posts of Computer Programmer or Computer Operator, and in the alternative, absorption as Statistical Assistant or Clerk.

Background of the Case

The petitioners argued that they had worked continuously since their initial engagement and that identically situated employees of DRDAs in Uttarakhand had been absorbed by that state's government. They relied on two government orders—one dated 13 August 2015 and another dated 9 December 2021—the latter of which referred to Rule 6(1) of the 2016 Regularisation Rules.

However, the court noted that several petitioners had either left employment, retired, or died during the pendency of the case. The petition was dismissed as not pressed for three petitioners who had left the job, and declared infructuous for six others who had attained superannuation and for one who had passed away.

Court's Analysis on Applicability of Rules

The court examined the two government orders on which the petitioners placed reliance. The Government Order dated 13 August 2015 , the court observed, is "applicable to the Government Departments, Autonomous Bodies, Public Enterprises and Corporations, Local Bodies and Development Authorities and District Panchayats" but not to DRDAs, which are societies performing functions under schemes of the Government of India .

As for the Government Order dated 9 December 2021 , which refers to Rule 6(1) of the 2016 Rules, the court pointed to Rule 2, sub-clause (3) of those rules, which expressly states that they "would not be applicable to the person/persons engaged, employed, deployed on consolidated pay, fixed honorarium in the schemes/projects of the State Government or the Government of India sponsored programme."

Justice Gupta concluded: "since the petitioners were engaged by the DRDA, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and which is performing the functions under the Schemes and Projects of the Government of India , no benefit under the 2016 Rules can be accorded to the petitioner."

Challenge to Earlier Orders

The petitioners also sought quashing of two orders—one dated 3 February 2009 passed by the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, and another dated 20 May 2010 passed by the Secretary, Rural Engineering Department . These orders had rejected the claims of other identically situated persons. The court held that since the petitioners were not parties to those proceedings or representations, "the persons aggrieved by the rejections might have the right to challenge the said orders but the said orders cannot be quashed at the behest of the petitioners herein."

Final Decision

Finding no merit in the petitioners' claim for regularisation, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The judgment reiterates that employees of societies operating under centrally sponsored schemes are outside the ambit of the U.P. Regularisation Rules of 2016.