Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2430 (ALL)

Sunita Sharma v. State of U. P.

2017-10-26

ABDUL MOIN, DILIP B.BHOSALE, VIVEK CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ram Naresh Shukla, Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. In the leading Writ Petition No. 1639 (SB) of 2015 in re Dr. Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another, following reference is made by the Division Bench vide order dated 16.10.2015 for consideration by the Larger Bench : ''(I) Whether the cut off date i.e. 30.6.1998 fixed under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 to adjudge the eligibility for regularization, can be ignored without strucking off from the Rules.'' 3. Accordingly the reference so made is heard by this Bench. 4. The facts set up by the petitioner in the case of Dr. Sunita Sharma, are as follows: Smt. Sunita Sharma was appointed as part-time Medical Officer vide appointment letter dated 23.12.1986, in pursuance of which she joined her duties on 1.1.1987. The petitioner continued to work up to 26.10.1990, when her services were not extended. Thereafter, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 1.10.1991 which provided that only those Medical Officers, who were appointed on part-time basis prior to 17.5.1990, shall be considered for adhoc appointment. The said Government Order further states that such part-time Medical Officers would be absorbed in various cadres and considered for regularization, at appropriate time, in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission. The date 17.5.1990, as mentioned in the Government Order dated 1.10.1991, was modified to 17.7.1991 by this Court by judgment dated 21.11.1996 in Writ Petition No. 3201 (S/B) of 1992 in Dr. Yogendra Singh vs. State of U.P. (The said judgment is referred to in detail, in later part of this judgment). 5. The date 17.5.1990, as mentioned in the Government Order dated 1.10.1991, was modified to 17.7.1991 by this Court by judgment dated 21.11.1996 in Writ Petition No. 3201 (S/B) of 1992 in Dr. Yogendra Singh vs. State of U.P. (The said judgment is referred to in detail, in later part of this judgment). 5. The petitioner thus, preferred a Writ Petition No. 5507 (S/B) of 1993 Smt. Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P and Others before this Court, which was connected alongwith other similar writ petitions and by means of a common judgment and order dated 18.7.1996, this Court allowed the writ petitions with the following directions: ''In view of the aforesaid position, we issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioners may be on ad-hoc basis, as Chikitsadhikari, in Government dispensaries, within the State, where posts have not been filled up, but as the posts are within the purview of Public Service Commission, they would be allowed to work only till persons regularly selected join the post or otherwise services of the petitioners are regularized.'' 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State Government preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 23.3.1998. 7. The Government, though delayed, but issued an order dated 9.7.1999, appointing the petitioner on ad-hoc basis, in compliance to the judgment passed in aforesaid bunch of writ petitions dated 18.7.1996 and, accordingly, the petitioner came to be appointed as an ad-hoc Medical Officer. 8. Subsequently, even after working for sufficiently long time, as her services were not regularized, she was constrained to file a Writ Petition No. 1276 (S/B) of 2010 in-re Dr. Sunita Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. which was decided by the High Court vide order dated 8.9.2010, by directing the opposite parties to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. Sunita Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. which was decided by the High Court vide order dated 8.9.2010, by directing the opposite parties to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. The petitioner in pursuance thereof preferred a representation for her regularization, but the same came to be rejected vide order dated 11.1.2012 by the opposite parties, by primarily contending that, as the petitioner has been appointed on ad-hoc basis subsequent to the cut-off date of 30.6.1998, as mentioned in the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment (on posts within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission), Rules 1979, as such, her claim cannot be considered for regularization under the said rules. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012. 10. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 11.1.2012, the petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition No. 1639 (S/B) of 2015, inter-alia praying for quashing of the said order dated 11.1.2012, by which her claim for regularization was rejected, and further praying for a direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization by treating her to be within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment (on posts outside the purview of U. P. Public Service Commission), Rules 1979. 11. Here, it would be pertinent to mention, that, petitioner is claiming her regularization under the U.P Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, while the opposite parties have considered her claim under the U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission), Rules 1979. On a specific query being put to Shri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties-State, as to which rules would be applicable in the instant matter, he states that keeping in view of the Government Order dated 1.10.1991, it would be the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment (on posts within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission), Rules 1979 which would be applicable. However, he states, that the said issue may need not detain us as the cut-off date under both the Rules is 30.6.1998. Keeping in view the aforesaid rule position, we proceed with the matter. 12. However, he states, that the said issue may need not detain us as the cut-off date under both the Rules is 30.6.1998. Keeping in view the aforesaid rule position, we proceed with the matter. 12. While filing the writ petition, the petitioner has also strongly placed reliance upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 62402 of 2012 - in re Dr. Shree Chandra Kaushik vs. State of U.P. and Others, decided on 9.7.2014 alongwith a bunch of other petitions. But another Division Bench of this Court, not agreeing with the decision in the case of Dr. Shree Chandra Kaushik, referred the question, as quoted above, to Larger Bench vide reference dated 16.10.2015. 13. Thus, in order to fully apprehend the reference and the circumstances in which it is made, we need to examine the facts and circumstances of Dr. Shree Chandra Kaushik case also. An association of Medical Officers filed a Writ Petition No. 4886 (S/S) of 1990 seeking regularization of services of their members. During pendency of writ petition, Government Order dated 1.10.1991 was issued. The said writ petition was decided on 11.2.1992 with direction to State Government to consider the petitioners for regularization and not to replace them. The judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court which was disposed of by order dated 19.2.1996 with direction that the State Government would take decision to regularize such doctors against 703 posts in near future. 14. Since the doctors were appointed after 17.5.1990 (the cut off date in Government Order dated 1.10.1991), they filed various writ petitions before this Court. The petitions were heard as a bunch with the leading case being Writ Petition No. 3201 (S/B) of 1992; Dr. Yogendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others. The said bunch was decided by judgment dated 21.11.1996. By the said judgment, this Court modified the cut off date 17.5.1990, provided in the Government, to 17.7.1991. The relevant portions of the said judgment reads as follows: ''Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the date 17th May, 1990 has been mentioned under some mistaken belief that any ban was imposed on ad hoc appointments on 17.5.1990. In connection with this submission, our attention has been drawn to Annexures SA-1 and SA-2, filed alongwith the supplementary-affidavit dated 18.3.1996. Annexure SA-1 is dated June 3, 1992. In connection with this submission, our attention has been drawn to Annexures SA-1 and SA-2, filed alongwith the supplementary-affidavit dated 18.3.1996. Annexure SA-1 is dated June 3, 1992. It indicates that a decision was taken on 17.5.90, in a meeting presided over by the then Health Minister, that no appointment of part-time medical officers be made thereafter. It further mentions that the Karmik Vighag had issued the Government Order on July 17, 1990. So the ban would be applicable after the issuance of the said Government Order. Annexure SA-2 is dated August 10,1992. It provides that in the Government Order contained in Annexure SA-1, the date July 17, 1990, be read as July 17, 1991 and to that extent the earlier Government Order was amended. The effect of the two Government Orders dated June 3, 1992 and August 10, 1992 is that the ban on appointment of part-time Medical Officers was imposed with effect from July 17, 1991 and not from the date when the decision was taken to that effect. That being the position, it is submitted that the petitioners stand on the same footing as the petitioners in the other writ petition, namely, writ petition No. 4886 of 1990, since the appointment of the present petitioners is also not after the imposition of ban on appointment of part-time Medical Officers. The policy decision dated October 1, 1991 for regularisation was obviously issued before Annexure SA-2 dated August 10, 1992 was issued. Therefore, date of imposition of ban on ad hoc appointment has been indicated as 17.5.90. In view of Government Orders dated 3.6.1992 and 10.8.1992 date of imposition of ban on adhoc appointments has to be taken and read as 17.7.1991 and not 17.5.1990, in para-1 of the policy decision dated 1.10.1991. That being the position, we feel that the petitioners would also be entitled for the same benefit as is available under the policy decision dated October 1, 1991. That being the position, we feel that the petitioners would also be entitled for the same benefit as is available under the policy decision dated October 1, 1991. The petitioners in the above noted writ petitions are all appointees of different dates in different years prior to July 17, 1991 except petitioner in writ petition No. 2278 of 1992, Nawal Kishore Pandey, who was appointed on 6.8.1991, that is to say, after the ban was imposed on appointment of part-time Medical Officers.'' ''In the result, we allow the above noted writ petitions and provide that the petitioners shall also be governed by the policy decision, taken by the State for regularisation of part-time Medical Officers, as contained in the Government Order dated October 1, 1991. We direct the opposite parties to consider the regularisation of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions in the light of what has been indicated above, expeditiously, say, within three months of furnishing a copy of this order to the State. This order has been passed in the presence of the learned State Counsel Sri V.C. Verma.'' 15. The State Government preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 2.4.1998. Thereafter a Government Order dated 27.11.1998 was issued declaring the petitioners and other similarly situated doctors as ad-hoc Medical Officers. 16. Again, the petitioners were not considered for regularization and thus, a number of writ petitions were filed, one of them being Writ Petition No. 1510 (S/B) of 2009, which was disposed of on 4.12.2009, directing the Principal Secretary, Medical Education to consider the case of petitioners for regularization, in light of judgment of High Court as well as Supreme Court, within four months. 17. Compliance of the said order was not made by the State Government and thus, a contempt petition followed and only thereafter rejection orders were issued, rejecting claim of petitioners for regularization, on the ground that they do not fall within the cut off date 30.6.1998, mentioned in the Regularization Rules. Thus, Dr. Shree Chandra Kaushik and others filed a bunch of writ petitions challenging the said orders, refusing their regularization. 18. The said bunch was decided with Dr. Shree Chandra Kaushik's Case, being leading Case No. Writ Appeal No. 62402 of 2012 by judgment dated 9.7.2014. Thus, Dr. Shree Chandra Kaushik and others filed a bunch of writ petitions challenging the said orders, refusing their regularization. 18. The said bunch was decided with Dr. Shree Chandra Kaushik's Case, being leading Case No. Writ Appeal No. 62402 of 2012 by judgment dated 9.7.2014. This Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in its judgment dated 9.7.2014, held that rights of petitioners stood crystallized much earlier. The relevant part of the judgment in case of Dr. Shree Chandra Kaushik is as follow: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record, we are of the view that the only ground mentioned in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioners is the cut-off date, i.e., 30.6.1998 as mentioned in the regularisation rules 1979 as amended in 2001. We are of the view that rejection of the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they having been appointed subsequent to the cut-off date are not entitled for regularisation, is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, a division bench of this Court on 1.11.1992 and 21.11.1996 declared them entitled to the benefit of the Government order dated 1.10.1991. The Court also held that the cut-off date, i.e., 17.5.1990 mentioned therein was, in fact, 17.7.1991, therefore, the petitioners having been appointed prior to 17.7.1991, were not only entitled to the benefit of being appointed as ad hoc medical officers but they were also entitled to be considered for regularisation, based on such status. The right of the petitioners stood crystalised on the date of the aforesaid judgement, subject to the result of the special leave petitions, which ultimately came to be dismissed on 2.4.1998. Once the special leave petitions were dismissed, the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regularisation. It is only on the ground of pendency of the special leave petitions that the respondents did not consider their claim earlier in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Even after dismissal of special leave petitions on 2.4.1998, they waited for almost seven months before issuing the Government order dated 27.11.1998, treating them as adhoc medical officers. The delay and inaction, in our view, was unjustified and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the wrongs of the respondents. Even after dismissal of special leave petitions on 2.4.1998, they waited for almost seven months before issuing the Government order dated 27.11.1998, treating them as adhoc medical officers. The delay and inaction, in our view, was unjustified and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the wrongs of the respondents. We are of the opinion that the petitioners were entitled to be conferred status of adhoc medical officers much earlier considering the Government order dated 1.10.1991 and the pronouncement of this Court dated 21.11.1996, and their rights stood crystalised on the said date itself. It is also relevant to mention here that the Supreme Court, while disposing one of the special leave petitions, on 6.12.1999, had recorded the statement on behalf of the State, as quoted earlier, that it would take two months' time to frame rules of regularisation and based thereon, it had directed the State Government to frame such a scheme within two months and take further action accordingly, within the aforesaid period, but in spite of this, no such scheme was framed. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders are not sustainable and are quashed. We are informed that some of the petitioners have retired from service. As regularisation of service has a bearing on post retirement benefits as also on other service benefits of an employee, it is imperative that such petitioners be also considered for regularisation of their services. We are of the considered opinion that all the petitioners are entitled to be treated as adhoc medical officers from a date prior to 30.6.1998, leaving it open for the respondents to determine the exact date in the light of pronouncement of this Court dated 21.11.1996 in the earlier proceedings. To this extent the Government order dated 27.11.1998 will not come in the way of the petitioners for consideration of their regularisation. Respondent No. 1 is directed to reconsider the case of petitioners, including those who have retired from service, for regularisation of their services under the Regularisation Rules of 1979 strictly in accordance with the observations made hereinabove, treating them as adhoc medical officers, from a date prior to 30.6.1998. Respondent No. 1 shall pass requisite orders accordingly, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Respondent No. 1 shall pass requisite orders accordingly, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. While considering the case of the petitioners for regularisation, the date of regularisation of their seniors and juniors shall also be kept in mind by the respondents. It is made clear that the case of the petitioners shall not be rejected on the ground that they were not ad hoc medical officers prior to 30.6.1998. So far as the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment is concerned, we do not find any merit in the same. All the writ petitions are, accordingly, partly allowed. Order date 9.7.2014.'' 19. A perusal of the judgment of Dr. Shri Chandra Kaushik Case shows that the Court in the said judgment did not modify the cut off date in the Regularization Rules. On the other hand, the Court has, in facts of the case, found that petitioners were appointed, working and their rights were crystallized as ad-hoc appointees in view of Government Order dated 1.10.1991 and earlier judgments passed by this Court, prior to the cut off date provided in the Regularization Rules of 1998. There is nothing in the judgment which disturbs or ignores the cut off date provided in the Regularization Rules of 1998. Thus, the reference dated 16.10.2015 does not arise for consideration. 20. As we have already found that the question referred does not arise for our consideration, it would have been appropriate for us to send back all the petitions to the appropriate Bench for being decided. However, as we had the occasion of going through the facts of all the cases in detail in the course of answering the reference, we proceed to adjudicate all the cases on their respective merit: 1. In Writ Petition No. 1639 (S/B) of 2015 - Dr. Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another, the facts have already been encapsulated above. There is already an order passed by this Court dated 18.7.1996, allowing the petitioner to work till the regularly selected candidates join the post and for appointing the petitioner on ad-hoc basis. In Writ Petition No. 1639 (S/B) of 2015 - Dr. Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another, the facts have already been encapsulated above. There is already an order passed by this Court dated 18.7.1996, allowing the petitioner to work till the regularly selected candidates join the post and for appointing the petitioner on ad-hoc basis. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 23.3.1998 and it was only more than a year later that in compliance of the judgment dated 18.7.1996 the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Medical Officer on 9.7.1999 and subsequently her case was rejected vide order dated 11.1.2012 by contending that as she was appointed on ad-hoc basis subsequent to the cut-off date of 30.6.1998 specified under the Regularization Rule 1979 as such her claim for regularization is being rejected. 2. Service Bench No. 1785 of 2015 - Dr. Atiya Khatun vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Department of Medical Education Lko and Others. The petitioner was appointed as ad-hoc Medical Officer on 27.9.1986. She also claims benefits of the Government Order dated 1.10.1991, which has already been discussed above. The petitioner further places reliance on a Bunch of writ petitions which were decided on 21.11.1996, directing the opposite parties to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for regularization in light of the policy decision dated 1.10.1991 and to appoint them on ad-hoc basis against which the special leave petition filed by the Government was dismissed on 2.4.1998. However, it was only subsequent thereto that the order dated 27.11.1998 was passed by the opposite party appointing the petitioner and others as ad-hoc Medical Officer, but despite the petitioner having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2014, neither her claim for regularization was considered nor any consequential benefits given to her and accordingly, she preferred the instant writ petition praying for considering her claim for regularization on the post of Medical Officer (Unani) from the date similarly situated persons have been regularized and to consider relaxing the cut-off date of 30.6.1998 mentioned in the Regularization Rules and to give all the consequential benefits. 3. Service Bench No. 1922 of 2015 - Dr. Shama Parveen vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Department of Medical Education Ayush and Others: The facts set-out in this case are that the petitioner was appointed as part-time Medical Officer on 21.6.1991. 3. Service Bench No. 1922 of 2015 - Dr. Shama Parveen vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Department of Medical Education Ayush and Others: The facts set-out in this case are that the petitioner was appointed as part-time Medical Officer on 21.6.1991. On 1.10.1991 the Government Order was issued, the details of which have already been discussed above, the benefit of which is also claimed by the petitioner. In the year 1994, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 174 (S/B) of 1994 in re. Dr. Shama Parveen vs. State of U.P. and Others, which was decided by this Court alongwith some other writ petitions vide judgment and order dated 18.7.1996, the details of which have already been given above. This order was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the opposite party by filing special leave petition, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.3.1998. It was only thereafter in compliance to the judgment that the State Government issued an order dated 9.7.1999 and the petitioner claims to be appointed on ad-hoc basis at Rajkiya Unani Chikitsalaya, Moradabad on the basis of said order dated 9.7.1999 on 8.12.2000. Her claim for regularization having not been considered despite she has submitted various representations and thereafter the petitioner having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2012, she preferred the instant writ petition seeking the relief of regularization of her services and other consequential benefits. 4. Service Bench No. 6564 of 2016 - Dr. Kalpana Raghuvanshi vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Department of Medical Education Lko. and Others: In this case, the petitioner contends that she was appointed as part-time Medical Officer on 20.3.1990 after due selection. She also refers Government Order dated 1.10.1991, the details of which have already been referred to the above. No action was taken by the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Government Order dated 1.10.1991, aggrieved against which the petitioner and other similarly situated persons preferred Writ Petition No. 859 (S/B) of 1993 in re: Dr. No action was taken by the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Government Order dated 1.10.1991, aggrieved against which the petitioner and other similarly situated persons preferred Writ Petition No. 859 (S/B) of 1993 in re: Dr. Kalpana Raghuvanshi vs. State of U.P and Others, before this Court and this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.7.1996, allowed the writ petition with other connected matters, directing the opposite parties to appoint the petitioners on ad-hoc basis and also to allow the petitioners to continue to work till regularly selected persons joined or the petitioners are regularized. This judgment was carried by the Government to the Hon'ble Apex Court, which dismissed the special leave petition vide judgment and order dated 25.3.1998 and in compliance thereof, the order dated 9.7.1999 was issued by the opposite party appointing the petitioner on ad-hoc basis. The said order is annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. In pursuance to the said order the petitioner joined as ad-hoc Medical Officer. The petitioner thereafter prayed for regularization of her services, but to no avail, where-after she was constrained to prefer the instant writ petition with the prayer for regularization of her services. 5. Service Bench No. 16171 of 2016 - Dr. Qureshi Nasreen Ansar Nabi vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Edu. Ayush and Others: In this writ petition, the petitioner claims to have been appointed as part-time Medical Officer on 28.10.1986, after interview and open selection. The petitioner also stakes her claim on the basis of the Government Order dated 1.10.1991, the details of which have already been discussed above. The petitioner refers to a series of writ petitions and the judgments passed therein pertaining to similarly circumstanced Medical Officers and the dismissal of special leave petition, where-after, a Government Order dated 27.11.1998 was issued appointing the petitioner and other similarly situated persons as ad-hoc Medical Officers. The said Government Order has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner not having been regularized claims relief for being regularized. 21. The said Government Order has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner not having been regularized claims relief for being regularized. 21. Having thus considered the individual facts of each case, we find that a common issue is involved in all the matters, in as much as once the Government Order dated 1.10.1991 was issued regarding the absorption and regularization of part-time Medical Officers and admittedly all the petitioners were appointed prior to the cut-off date of 17.7.1991, as specified in the said Government Order as such they were entitled for being given the benefit of the said Government Order, by appointing them as ad-hoc Medical Officers, but the same was not done by the opposite parties. Subsequent thereto, various writ petitions were filed before this Court by the petitioners herein bearing Writ Petition No. 5507 (S/B) of 1993 - Smt. Sunita Sharma, Writ Petition No. 174 (S/B) of 1994 - Dr. Shama Parveen and Writ Petition No. 859 of 1993 - Dr. Kalpana Raghuvanshi, wherein the said writ petitions were decided vide judgment and order dated 18.7.1996, by which this Court issued a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioners on ad-hoc basis and for allowing them to work till regularly selected persons joined the post or otherwise services of the petitioners are regularized. This judgment was challenged by the State Government before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring a special leave petition, in which there was no restrain order, restraining the State Government from complying with the judgment and order dated 18.7.1996, meaning thereby that the petitioners could have been appointed on ad-hoc basis in compliance to the judgment and order dated 18.7.1996. However, it was only when the said special leave petition was dismissed on 23.3.1998 and after a sufficient long time thereafter that the appointment orders were issued appointing all the petitioners herein on ad-hoc basis. Interestingly, all the appointment orders were issued after the cut-off date of 30.6.1998 as notified under the Regularization Rules, 1979. Thereafter, when the claim for regularization was set-forth by the petitioners, the same were either rejected or not considered at all on the ground that petitioners had been appointed on ad-hoc basis subsequent to the cut-off date of 30.6.1998 and contending that the petitioners were not entitled for the benefits of regularization under the Regularization Rules, 1979. 22. Thereafter, when the claim for regularization was set-forth by the petitioners, the same were either rejected or not considered at all on the ground that petitioners had been appointed on ad-hoc basis subsequent to the cut-off date of 30.6.1998 and contending that the petitioners were not entitled for the benefits of regularization under the Regularization Rules, 1979. 22. The said action on the part of the opposite parties in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization by taking the ground of the petitioners having been appointed on ad-hoc basis subsequent to the cut-off date of 30.6.1998, virtually amounts to putting a premium on the inaction on the part of opposite parties in initially not complying with the judgment of this Court dated 18.7.1996 and thereafter belatedly complying with the judgment after the dismissal of said special leave petition on 23.3.1998, by issuing the orders appointing the petitioners on ad-hoc basis after the cut-off date of 30.6.1998. Such inaction on the part of the opposite parties cannot be made a ground, in our opinion, of rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization as the same would be patently arbitrary, malicious and high-handed action on the part of opposite parties in firstly not complying with the Government Order dated 1.10.1991 and thereafter belatedly complying withss the judgment of this Court dated 18.7.1996. 23. Once the petitioners were all along agitating for their rights in terms of Government Order dated 1.10.1991 and having approached this Court for the redressal of the grievances and having staked the claim for their regularization on the basis of said Government Order dated 1.10.1991, which resulted in the judgment of this Court dated 18.7.1996 and it being affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the dismissal of the special leave petition on 23.3.1998, thus the same entailed and entitled the petitioners for being appointed on ad-hoc basis once their right stood crystallized in terms of Government Order dated 1.10.1991 and the judgment of the Court dated 18.7.1996 i.e. much prior to the cut-off date under the Regularization Rules, 1979 of 30.6.1998. Therefore, once the impugned action on the part of opposite parties is viewed in light of discussions made above, it is apparent that the impugned orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners for their regularization are patently arbitrary, malicious and illegal and thus the said rejection orders merit outright quashing with a further direction for reconsideration of the claims of the petitioners for regularization. 24. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 11.1.2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 1639 (S/B) of 2015 - Dr. Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another. A mandamus is issued in all the writ petitions directing the opposite party No. -1 to reconsider the case of all the petitioners for regularization of their services under the Regularization Rules 1979, strictly in accordance with the observations made herein above, treating them as ad-hoc Medical Officer from a date prior to 30.6.1998. Such orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the opposite party No. 1. While considering the case of the petitioners for regularization, the date of regularization of their seniors and juniors shall also be kept in mind by the opposite parties. It is also made clear that the case of the petitioners shall not be rejected on the ground that they were not appointed as ad-hoc Medical Officer prior to 30.6.1998. 25. All the writ petitions are, accordingly, partly allowed.