Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2718 (ALL)

Sant Ram v. State of U. P.

2015-09-02

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2015
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is a daily wager working under the Superintendent, Government Garden, Faizabad, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11.03.2006, passed by the In-charge Superintendent, Government Garden, Faizabad, whereby his claim for payment of minimum pay scale and regularization of his services has been rejected. 3. It so happened that the petitioner and two others namely, (i) Tulsi Ram and (ii) Hirday Ram, filed Writ Petition No.7390 (S/S) of 2005 with the prayer that their services be regularized and it may be directed that they are paid minimum pay scale. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 18.11.2005 directing the authorities concerned to consider the case of the petitioners of the said writ petition for regularization in accordance with the provisions contained in Regularization Rules, 2001 meant for regularizing the services of the daily wagers. 4. In compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.11.2005, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7390 (S/S) of 2005, the case of the petitioner and various other daily wagers including Shri Tulsi Ram was considered and rejected by means of the impugned order dated 11.03.2006. 5. The reasons indicated in the impugned order dated 11.03.2006 are two folds: (i) that the petitioners are daily wage employees, who are not technically skilled and as such they do not perform the functions similar to the functions being performed by a Mali and (ii) that the petitioner was not appointed against any available posts. 6. The case of the petitioner was rejected along with others including that of Shri Tulsi Ram by means of the same impugned order dated 11.03.2006. Shri Tulsi Ram, challenging the said order dated 11.03.2006 filed Writ Petition No.6467 (S/S) of 2008, which has finally been allowed by this Court by means of the order dated 17.08.2015. While allowing the said writ petition by means of the judgment and order dated 17.08.2015, it has been observed by this Court that respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner therein for regularization in service under the statutory Rules, 2001 expeditiously. While allowing the said writ petition by means of the judgment and order dated 17.08.2015, it has been observed by this Court that respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner therein for regularization in service under the statutory Rules, 2001 expeditiously. It has further been directed by this Court that if any person junior to the petitioner has been regularized in service according to the Rules, 2001, notional benefit of service shall be granted to the petitioner of the said writ petition as well except difference of past salary from the date juniors were regularized but current salary admissible to him shall be fixed at par. The operative portion of the said judgment and order dated 17.08.2015, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6467 (S/S) of 2008 is quoted below: "Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.03.2006 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization in service under the statutory rules, 2001 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order along with the representation is produced before the competent authority. It is made clear, if any junior person to the petitioner has been regularized in service according to the statutory rule, 2001 notional benefit of service shall be granted to the petitioner for all service benefits except difference of past salary from the date junior persons have been regularized but the current salary admissible to the petitioner shall be fixed at par. " 7. Accordingly, this petition also deserves to be allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 17.08.2015 as quoted above. 8. At this juncture, learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the impugned order clearly says that the petitioner was not engaged against any vacant post and as such in absence of any vacant available post, his case cannot be considered for regularization. 9. I may point out that for the purposes of regularizing the daily wage employees, the State Government itself has issued a Government Order dated 08.09.2010 prescribing therein that for the purposes of regularization of the daily wagers, supernumerary post shall be created and in accordance with relevant rules, the cases of the daily wagers shall be considered for being regularized in service. 10. 10. In view of the provisions of the aforesaid Government Order, even at present, even if no vacancy of class-IV employees is available, the supernumerary post has to be created for the purposes of regularizing the services of the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is also allowed. The impugned order dated 11.03.2006, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 12. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with rules expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is also provided that if any person junior to the petitioner has been regularized in service, all service benefits shall be granted to the petitioner notionally with effect from the date any person junior to him was regularized, except the difference of past salary. 13. There will be no order as to costs.