Allahabad High Court
State Of ... vs Siddhnath Yadav on 21 November, 2019
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 511 of 2019 Appellant :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Forest Lko.And Ors. Respondent :- Siddhnath Yadav Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,Anshuman Singh Rathore,Pradeep Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
C.M. Application No. 128470 of 2019.
This application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed on the ground that after final order dated 09.05.2018, an application for review was filed, being review application No. 127538 of 2018, which was taken up on 08.03.2019 and after hearing the delay was condoned. But the review application was dismissed on merit. Thereafter after obtaining necessary approval from the State Government the present Special Appeal has been filed.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, the reason shown in the affidavit are sufficient, therefore we are of the view that cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient, accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
Order Date :- 21.11.2019 A.K. Singh (Alok Mathur, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.) Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 511 of 2019 Appellant :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Forest Lko.And Ors.
Respondent :- Siddhnath Yadav Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,Anshuman Singh Rathore,Pradeep Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Ms. Jyoti Sikka, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Amit Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, leaned counsel for the respondent.
The respondent-writ petitioner was engaged as daily wager in the month of March 1991 in Forest Range, District Pratapgarh. The respondent continued to discharge his duties as daily wage in the department of appellant. The State Government framed a rules, known as U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' posts Rules, 2001(hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2001). The claim of the petitioner in light of the regular appointment has been rejected on 13.11.2013 on the ground that he has not worked continuously in the year 1992-1993, therefore, as per Rule 4(1)(a) of the Regularization Rule 2001 he is not entitled for the grant of regularization Rule, 2001.
It is submitted that learned writ court has relied on the decision in the case of Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2008 (1) UPLBEC, 498, in which it has been held that as per Rule 4(1)(a) of Rule, 2001 the only requirement for regularization is that the incumbent must be appointed directly on daily wages before 29.06.1991. It is no where stated that incumbent must work through out from the date of initial appointment till the date of commencement of rules. Therefore, the order impugned dated 13.11.2013 challenged in the writ petition was quashed and appellant No.3 was directed to regularize the services of the writ petitioner on Class IV posts from the date junior to the writ petitioner has been granted regularization, in view of Rule, 2001 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of the Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (supra) has been over ruled by the Division Bench in State of U.P. and others Vs. Ram Roop Yadav in Special Appeal No. 47 of 2016.
We make it clear that a similar question of "artificial break" has already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1016 of 2005 dated 24.09.2015 in the case of Surendra Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others which reads as under:-
?The learned Judge found that in the chart giving details of the engagement of the writ petitioners as daily wagers, the column relating to working in the year 2001-02 was left blank and against the year 2013, it was mentioned that both the writ petitioners were working from February 2003 and July 2003 respectively. The learned Judge also recorded a finding that the writ petitioners had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that they were working on daily wages in the Forrest Department during the relevant period and the contention of the writ petitioners that they had been working without payment of any wages was also not accepted for the reason that it was difficult to believe that the writ petitioners would be actually working for two years without payment of wages.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that even if the writ petitioners had not worked for some period, then too the break should be treated as artificial break and should have been overlooked for the purpose of considering their claim for regularisation.
In the present case, the writ petitioners had not worked on daily wage basis for a long period of two years. This break cannot be treated to be an artificial break in the service. The writ petitioners did not satisfy the essential requirements contained in the 2001 Rules. They were, therefore, not entitled for regularisation under the 2001 Rules.
There is, therefore, no error in the judgment which may call for any interference in this Special Appeal.
The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.?
In view of the aforesaid, we set-aside the impugned judgment and orders dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned writ Court in Writ No. 7461 (S/S) of 2013 and also the order dated 08.03.2019 passed in re: review application No. 127538 of 2018 in writ petition No. 7461 (S/S) of 2013 and remit the matter to the learned writ court to decide it in accordance with law.
The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 21.11.2019 A.K. Singh (Alok Mathur, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.)