Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Verma And Ors. 5060 S/S1998 vs State Of U.P.Throu.Its Secy.Deptt.Of ... on 23 September, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65833-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 198 of 2015 Appellant :- Rajesh Verma And Ors. 5060 S/S1998 Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Its Secy.Deptt.Of Housing And Urban And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Sameer Kalia,Birendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma,Sri Fareed Ahmad Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit on behalf of appellants filed today in Court is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sameer Kalia along with Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Fareed Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent-Jal Sansthan and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
3. By means of instant appeal, the appellants has challenged the judgment and order order dated 16.04.2015 passed by writ Court in Writ Petition No. 5060 (SS) of 1998.
4. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in 2016 fresh regularization rules have been framed by the State Government which have been adopted by the Jal Sansthan and, in fact, requisition has been sent to the State Government by the Jal Sansthan for creation of supernumerary posts for the regularization of the appellants herein, therefore, the appeal may be disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties herein to consider the claim of the appellants for regularization in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016.
5. Counsel for the State says that the judgment under challenge in the appeal by the learned Single Judge relates to the claim of the appellants herein for being considered for regularization under the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 to which learned counsel for the appellants says that the impugned judgment is based on the regularization Rules, 2001, therefore, this will not come in the way of appellants being considered for regularization under the Rules, 2016, especially as Rule 5 thereof there is a provision for creation of supernumerary posts where the vacancies do not exist. We find merit in this submission.
6. We have been informed that Writ Petition bearing No. 30285 (SS) of 2018 was filed by the appellants herein seeking consideration for regularization under the 2016 Rules as according to them, they fell within its purview, however, the said writ petition was dismissed on 12.01.2018. The order has been placed before us which reads as under:
"Sri K.K. Pandey, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3 may be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Office of learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Sri K.K.Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 3.
Sri Fareed Ahmad, learned Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5.
The grievance of the petitioners is that a writ petition was field for claiming regularization on Class-III and Class-IV post. The said writ petition was dismissed, against which Special Appeal No. 198 of 2015 was filed before this Court which is pending consideration.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of filing of the writ petition and Special Appeal, there was no regularization rules for consideration of claim of regularization of such employees like the petitioners. Now U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Department on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission), Rules 2016 has been promulgated by the State Government and in accordance with that the petitioners' claim are liable to be considered.
The petitioners have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Department on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission), Rules 2016.
In the opinion of the Court, in case the matter of regularization is engaging attention of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal, there shall be no justification in entertaining this writ petition. The Court decline to interfere in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Division Bench by placing their claim in view of the above rules, 2016 accordingly."
7. The only reason given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition was pendency of this appeal arising out of earlier judgment wherein the claim was with regard to Regularization Rules, 2001 and not the Regularization Rules, 2016. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this dismissal order dated 12.10.2018 does not come in the way of this Court or for that matter the appellants herein to claim as aforesaid.
8. Bereft of technicalities and considering the facts of the case, the appeal is disposed of without interfering in the impugned judgment with the observation/direction that if the regularization Rules of 2016 has been adopted by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow or the Jal Sansthan which is its part, as the case may be, for application to the employees of the erstwhile Jal Sansthan which is now part of the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and there is no legal impediment in this regard and also if requisition has been sent to the State Government for creation of supernumerary posts then the opposite parties shall consider the claim of the appellants for regularization in accordance with the said Rules of 2016 uninfluenced by the order dated 12.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 30285 (SS) of 2018 and take a reasoned decision in this regard at the earliest say within three months.
9. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid term.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 23.9.2024 Santosh/Shubhankar.