Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 4 Others vs Mahendra Singh on 13 October, 2020
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 516 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Respondent :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Yash Tandon Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
This special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition therein has been allowed in favour of the employee.
It is a case where the non-appellant was engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon on 01.09.1997. He was continued in service as Seasonal Peon though at one stage, his services were discontinued. A writ petition was thereupon preferred by the petitioner/non-appellant but in the meanwhile, he was taken in service pursuant to the order of the Commissioner. The non-appellant is thus working with the respondents/appellants continuously for the last 23 years. The services of other similarly placed has been regularized. Thus, the petitioner/non-appellant claimed the same benefit, as was given to others.
It is stated that the regularization was denied to the non-appellant mainly on the ground that his appointment was not in accordance with the Rules while those who have been regularized were appointed in accordance with the Rules. The writ petition has yet been allowed. The prayer is to cause interference in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The non-appellant was engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon on 01.09.1997. He is continuously working with the respondents for the last 23 years, though at one point of time, his services were terminated but he was taken back in the service in pursuance to the order of the Commissioner and working continuously.
The counsel for the appellant is fair to admit that at the time of appointment of the non-appellant, there were no recruitment rules for the post in question. It came into effect subsequently when others were appointed. If that is the position, it cannot be said that the appointment of the non-appellant was not in consonance to Rules when they were not even existing. It is further fact that though the non-appellant was appointed as Seasonal Collection Peon but was working throughout the year. Thus, he was continuously discharging his duties, as has been discharged by others. Those who were appointed subsequently to the petitioner/non-appellant in the same manner, their services have been regularized and otherwise under the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner/non-appellant was found entitle to the regularization. The aforesaid is coming out from the order dated 28.04.2015.
The learned Single Judge, accordingly, found it a case of discrimination and after elaborate discussion on the issues involved in the writ petition, it was allowed with the direction to regularize the services of the petitioner/non-appellant with consequential benefits. It is moreso when the non-appellant was member of GPF and was given E.L. increment. The revision of pay was also allowed on 06.01.2009. Thus, for all the purposes, the non-appellant has been treated to be regular and for that reason, residential house was also allotted to him though serious objection regarding competency of the officer who allotted the house has been raised but no action has been initiated for that.
In the light of the aforesaid and detailed discussion made by the learned Single Judge, we do not find a case for interference.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Sinha_Nirmal