Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3457 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.

2015-11-03

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2015
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and gone through the records. 2. This is a bunch of writ petitions involving similar facts and circumstances and as such they have been connected and heard together and now the same are being decided by the common judgment. 3. The Writ Petition No. 1780 (S/S) of 2012, has been filed challenging the order dated 23.3.2012 whereby regularization of petitioner has been cancelled and the petitioner has been allowed minimum of the regular pay scale. The salary of the petitioner has also been reduced whereas Writ Petition Nos.2523 (S/S) of 2012, 2528 (S/S) of 2012, 2010 (S/S) of 2012, 2011 (S/S) of 2012, 2112 (S/S) of 2012 and 2114 (S/S) of 2014, have been filed challenging the order dated 23.3.2012 whereby the regularization of petitioners have been cancelled and they have been reverted in the lower pay scale on the post of Mali and Dakia etc. 4. The writ petition No.1780 (S/S) of 2012 being the leading case has been taken up by the Court for the purpose of final hearing and the facts of this case have been taken into consideration. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages in the year 1989 in Class IV establishment. He has worked for more than 26 years and the work and conduct of the petitioner has always remained satisfactory. The case of the petitioner is covered under the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts, Rules 2001. The controversy of employees working on daily wages in various departments regarding regularization has already been settled by the Apex Court in State of U.P. & others Vs. Putti Lal; 2002 (20) LCD 1004 , wherein a direction has been issued to the State Government to frame a scheme to regularize daily wages employees working in various departments of the State Government. 6. It is also submitted that the State Government has issued Government Order dated 8.9.2010, wherein it is provided that all the departments under the State Government shall take appropriate steps for creation of additional posts for regularization of existing daily wages employees. It is further submitted that the Writ Petition No. 7101 (S/S) of 2007 was filed by the petitioners seeking regularization and payment of minimum regular pay scale. It is further submitted that the Writ Petition No. 7101 (S/S) of 2007 was filed by the petitioners seeking regularization and payment of minimum regular pay scale. The Court vide interim order dated 2.11.2007 had provided that opposite parties shall pay minimum of pay scale admissible to the petitioners. The operative portion of the interim order dated 2.11.2007 passed in Writ Petition 7101 (S/S) of 2007 is reproduced below: "In the meantime, it is provided that in case the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date, i.e. 29.6.1991, as provided by the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' posts, Rules 2001, the opposite parties shall pay minimum of the pay scale admissible to the petitioner's cadre." 7. Instead of complying with the order dated 2.11.2007, the services of the petitioners were dispensed with by oral order. The petitioner thereafter had challenged the termination order by filing Writ Petition No.3456 (S/S) of 2008 wherein vide order dated 2.7.2008 it was provided that: "Learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite parties is allowed six weeks' time to file counter affidavit, two weeks then for the rejoinder. List thereafter along with writ petition no.7101 (SS) of 2007. In the meantime, it is provided that in case the petitioner's services have been dispensed with orally and he has continuously discharged duty since 1989 coupled with the fact that juniors have been retained, the respondents shall also retain the petitioner and he be allowed to continue in service till further orders of this Court." 8. Submission is that it was thereafter a selection committee was called and on the recommendation of the selection committee the services of the petitioner on the post of Forest Guard were regularized vide order dated 4.8.2010. The copy of said regularization order is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. However in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without providing any opportunity to the petitioner the opposite party no.2 vide impugned order has cancelled the regularization order of the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner was not getting minimum of the regular pay scale, as such he is not entitled to be regularized. It is also said that there was no direction of the Court for regularization of service of petitioner. 9. It is also said that there was no direction of the Court for regularization of service of petitioner. 9. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has not continuously worked from the date of initial appointment. There is break in service, his services were discontinued however in compliance of the order passed by the High Court, he has been allowed to work. It is further submitted that there was no direction for regularization of service of petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was wrongly regularized on the post of Forest Guard. The direction of the High Court was to pay minimum of the regular pay scale, as such by the impugned order the petitioner has been permitted minimum of the regular pay scale. 10. In the connected writ petitions similar orders have been passed cancelling the regularization of the petitioners, however they have been placed on the lower post of Mali and Dakia etc. and their salary has been reduced. 11. Considering the submissions made by the parties' counsel and going through the records, I am of the considered view that no opportunity was provided to the petitioners before passing the impugned order which has the civil consequences as it adversely affects the petitioners. 12. It is well settled that in such circumstances an opportunity was required to be given to the petitioners before passing any such order. By the impugned order the regularization of petitioners has been cancelled and in Writ Petition No.1780 (S/S) of 2012, the petitioner has been given lesser salary i.e. minimum of the regular pay scale whereas in other writ petitions, petitioners have been reverted to the lower post and their salary has been reduced. The orders impunged as such have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, hence not sustainable in the eyes of law, the same are hereby quashed. 13. There is no denying the fact that the State Government vide Government Order dated 8.9.2010 has provided that the daily wages employees working in various departments of the State Government shall be regularized and even for that purpose additional posts shall be created. 14. As such, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularization on Clause IV posts on which they were working prior to passing of the impugned orders. 15. 14. As such, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularization on Clause IV posts on which they were working prior to passing of the impugned orders. 15. Admittedly, the petitioners have been working from the date prior to the cut off date provided under U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules 2001, as such in any case they are entitled to be considered for regularization. 16. The writ petitions are allowed. 17. The impugned orders dated 23.3.2012 are hereby quashed. The opposite parties shall consider the petitioners for regularization and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority. 18. Till then the petitioners shall be allowed to continue and discharge their duties and shall also be paid salary as was being paid to them.