High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Chandra Tiwari And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 48072 of 2004  RD-AH 5934 (10 March 2006)
Court no. 50
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 48072 OF 2004
Ram Chandra Tiwari & another vs. State of U.P. & others.
Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition is directed against that part of the order dated 12.6.2003 by which the petitioners have been wrongly regularized w.e.f. the date they assume charge and a further direction is sought for granting of consequential benefits including salary, seniority and pay fixation in the cadre on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 28.12.1994.
The petitioners have been working in the Irrigation Department as work-charge employees since 1987. When 93 posts were sanctioned for regularization of such work-charge employees, a selection committee considered their cases and recommended for their regularization vide its recommendation order dated 28.12.1994. However, the respondents did not take any consequential action forcing them to file Writ Petition No. 33410 of 1996. In the counter affidavit, which was filed in the aforesaid petition, the only ground taken was that the petitioners have become overage and as such they could not be regularized. A learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing the parties, relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court, allowed the writ petition vide its order and judgment dated 17.7.2001 directing the respondents to grant relaxation in the age upto the period they have worked on daily wage basis and to pass orders on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 28.12.1994. In consequence thereof, instead of granting regularization, the respondents though granted pay scale to the petitioners but placed them again as a work-charge employee vide order dated 17.10.2001. This was again challenged and a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 18.1.2002 directed that the petitioner should be regularized for the same type of job when the vacancy occurs. In pursuance thereof, by the impugned order they have been regularized but from the date of assuming charge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioners cannot be punished for the default committed by the respondents. From the record, it is evident that the petitioners were entitled for regularization in 1994 along with other similarly placed persons and in fact they were recommended for regularization vide order dated 28.12.1994. The only ground for not regularizing the petitioners was their age and which ground was set-aside by this Court earlier. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer due to the mistake committed by the respondents because similarly placed persons have already been regularized in 1994 itself.
For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the pay scale, pay fixation, seniority and all other benefits to the petitioner from the date similarly placed persons were regularized in pursuance of the recommendation dated 28.12.1994. All the arrears, if any, be paid to the petitioners within a month and he will be entitled for all benefits including pensionary. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.