Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 11 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161426
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 30209 of 2003
Rajesh Kumar Singh And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
H.K.Srivastava, Himkanya Srivastava, Lal Chandra Srivastava, Rastrapati Khare, S.N.Singh, R.K.Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., H.R.Mishra, N. Mishra, Sujeet Kumar Rai
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.K. Verma, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent.
2. The petitioners were appointed on daily wage with U.P. Cooperative Processing and Cold Storage Federation Limited in the year 1999 and claimed that they were allowed to work till December, 2002, however, when their salary was discontinued with effect from January, 2003, they approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition that they be allowed to continue to work with same terms and conditions under which they have worked for last more than 4 years.
3. This Court has passed following interim order dated 04.08.2003 :-
"Sri Nipendra Misra has accepted notice on behalf of oppostie parties 1 to 5. Sri N. Misra, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks next thereafter. List this matter after expiring of the aforesaid period.
Perused the detailed order passed in writ petition No.5357/55/02 Mohd. Shafiur Rehman Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others. In deference to the judicial comity I feel called to pass the following interim order :-
Till further orders, opposite parties shall allow the petitioners to continue without asking them to execute any agreement/contract on the same terms and conditions on which they were working earlier. They shall also keep in abeyance the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement in question."
4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submits that they have taken benefit of said interim order and are still working though they are being paid daily wages as applicable on the day of interim order was passed. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner by referring provisions of ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?? ??????????????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????-?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???? ???????????? ??????????, 2017 (Rules 2017) that petitioners who are now working regular for last 25 years can be considered for regularization and he further prays that their daily wages be increased in terms of amendments made in the relevant provision, so far as determination of daily wage is concerned.
5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioners appointment were through Engineer who was not the competent authority, therefore, probably their case would not fall within the ambit of 'Rules 2017', though he on basis of limited instructions, has not disputed that petitioners have taken advantage of interim order. Learned counsel for respondent refers a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Sunil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Writ-A No.-54876 of 2004.
6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record.
7. The petitioners have already enjoyed the interim order for last 22 years as well as that now 'Rules 2017' are enforced, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of that petitioners' claim for regularization be considered in accordance with law and in case of any legal impediment, the same may be informed to petitioner within short period. So far as quantum of daily wage is concerned since daily wage is increased from time to time by way of notification, the respondent may also take a decision in that regard also within a short period. The issue of regularization be considered expeditiously, preferably within period of six months. Meanwhile, petitioners be allowed to work.
8. Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observations.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) September 11, 2025 P. Pandey