Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SADANAND versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sadanand v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 47314 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 13540 (17 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 3

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47314 of 2004

Sadanand                                         ----         Petitioner

Vs.

The State of U.P. & others             -----               Respondents.

----

Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.

Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents are present. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in spite of time having been granted to them. However, on the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the Rules of Court, 1952.  

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 1.7.2004 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services.

The facts of the case of the petitioner in brief are that he was initially appointed as watcher on daily wages on 1.3.1983 in the forest department at Sarnath Range, Varanasi and continued to function regularly thereafter with certain breaks of few days. The contention of the petitioner is that though his services were squarely covered under U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments of Group-D Post Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regularization Rules, 2001") but his services were not considered for regularization by the respondents and he was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 6810 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.2.2004 directing the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner filed representation upon which the respondent no. 2 illegally and erroneously passed the impugned order dated 1.7.2004 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that though the petitioner had been working since 1983 till date but he had not put in 240 days continuous service in each calendar year since 29th June, 1991 to 21st December, 2001, therefore, he was not found suitable for being regularized under the Regularization Rules, 2001.

Learned Standing Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to the order of this Court dated 19.2.2004 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed in the writ petition 6810 of 2004 wherein it has been referred as "It appears from Annexure -8 letter dated 4th December, 1999 that the petitioner was not in service on the date of commencement of the rules. However, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is continuous in service and he is entitled for regularization according to the aforesaid rules. He has annexed Annexures- 1 to 5 to the writ petition showing his date of working. These things cannot be looked into by this Court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner submits an application within three weeks from today to the authority concerned, he shall consider the case of the petitioner and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter." However, in the impugned order it has been specifically stated that the petitioner has worked 211 days in the year 1983-84, 334 days in the year 1884-85, 245 days in the year 1985-86, 272 days in the year 1986-87, 365 days in the year 87-88, 352 days in the year 88-89, 30 days in the year 89-9-, 116 days in the year 90-91, 363 days in the year 91-92, 362 days in the year 92-93, 243 days in the year 1997-98, 272 days in the year 98-99, 21 days in the year 99-2000 and 78 days in the year 2001-02.

Para 4 of the Regularization Rules, provides as under:

"4. Regularisation of daily wages appointments on Group "D" Posts- (a) 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) 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."  

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have looked in to the record of the case. In view of the aforesaid rules for regularization of the services of the petitioner by the respondents the learned Standing Counsel has failed to show that 240 days working in a year is a must for an employee to be considered for regularization in service. Thus, I find that the respondent no. 2 has committed gross illegality in taking the basis of non-completion of 240 day service in a year by the petitioner while rejecting the case of the petitioner for being considered for regularization. In the result, the impugned order dated 1.7.2004 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the respondent no. 2 is directed to reconsider the regularization of services of the petitioner in accordance with law strictly in terms of provisions of the Regularisation Rules, 2001 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order alongwith copy of this writ petition before it. No order as to costs.

Dt. 17.08.2006

Kdo  wp  47314/2004


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.