Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2900 (ALL)

RAM CHANDRA YADAV v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-12-20

SUNIL HALI

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Petitioner claims to have been appointed on daily wage basis on 1.1.1987. He states that he continues to work on the said post even on today. In support of his claim, the petitioner has placed on record the list of daily wagers in which their dates of appointment are reflected. The list is said to have been issued on 20th June, 2000 in which petitioner is placed at Serial No. 60. He claims that he is entitled to be regularized in terms of the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group D Posts Rules, 2001. He states that he has filed Writ Petition No. 23954 of 2001 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner. This Court on 5.7.2001 directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of three months. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, representation was filed by the petitioner which was rejected. Against the said rejection, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 1130 of 2002 in which direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. On their failure to regularize the services of the petitioner, a contempt petition was filed. On the pain of contempt, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.12.2003. 2. The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner did not have continuous service from 1991 to 2001. It is further stated that the petitioner had worked with periodical breaks as such he is not entitled to be regularized under Rule-4 of the said Rule. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The stand of the petitioner that he was appointed on 1.1.1987, this fact was not disputed by the respondents, and continues to work ever since that on daily wage basis. The only objection taken in the impugned order is that the petitioner did not have a continuous service from 1991 to 2001 as a result of which he is not entitled to be regularized under this Rule. The only objection taken in the impugned order is that the petitioner did not have a continuous service from 1991 to 2001 as a result of which he is not entitled to be regularized under this Rule. In order to appreciate this controversy Rule-4 is quoted hereinbelow : (a) The person must be appointed on daily wage basis on a Group D post in the Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules, and (b) The person must possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group D post on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. 5. Petitioner admittedly was appointed on 1.1.1987 as such the aforesaid rule is clearly applied in his case. The requirement of the rule is that the petitioner should have continued in service on the date of commencement of this rule. What has been contemplated is that on the date when the aforesaid rule has come into force, he should be in the service. The rule making Body was aware of the fact that the appointment made on daily wage basis, such interruption of periodical breaks are inherent. What is emphasized is that the persons who are working continuously even though with breaks are required to be given benefit of regularization. A person, who is entitled to be regularized under the said Rules should have been appointed prior to June, 1991 and was working on the date when the said Rule came into force. Their continuance in the department from 1991 to 2001 even with breaks is itself an indication that their services are required by the department. Very nature of their appointment being of daily wager, does not contemplate uninterrupted tenure. It is why expression has been used in the Rule that a person should be continued in service on the date when the Rule came into force. The rule does not contemplate uninterrupted continuous service. Very nature of their appointment being of daily wager, does not contemplate uninterrupted tenure. It is why expression has been used in the Rule that a person should be continued in service on the date when the Rule came into force. The rule does not contemplate uninterrupted continuous service. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent is reading something into the rule which is not intended thereby. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow and others, 2005(4) ESC 2633 (All) reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to issue an order for regular appointment in favour of the petitioner provided he is eligible and qualified to hold the said post within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. It is further provided that the petitioner shall be given minimum of the pay scale provided for the post of Class-IV employee. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. ——————