Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 6 August, 2025
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133094 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22246 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Gopal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi,Surendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to command respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization with effect from the date his juniors were regularized initially in the batch of 1996 as Collection Peon and then in the batch of 1997 and 1999.
It is contended that the petitioner had been working as Seasonal Collection Peon with respondent establishment right since 1984 and when the question of regularization took place, ignoring the seniority list, the respondents proceeded to regularize many junior persons working as Seasonal Collection Peon in the relevant years of 1996, 1997 and 1999.
It is next contended that in order to seek regularization certain Seasonal Collection Peons had approached the Claims Tribunal by filing claim petition being Claim Petition no. 4691/1/1990 and through many other petitions, which all were clubbed together and disposed of by a common order passed by the Tribunal on 24.03.1999 in which a direction was issued. However, the respondents while considered some cases for regularization, the petitioner's case was not considered and petitioner accordingly approached this Court directly by filing a petition being Writ - A No. 27944 of 2008 taking the plea of discrimination meted out to him ever since the junior persons came to be regularized in the year 1996, 1997 and 1999. This Court, he submits, while quashing the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, passed a detailed order dated 29.01.2013 directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider the claim of the petitioner under 2004 Rules along with the claim of others for the purposes of regularization and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.
It is argued that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the services of the petitioner came to be regularized vide order dated 15.01.2013 but not giving benefit of regularization with effect from the date his juniors were regularized. It is, therefore, under protest, that petitioner submitted his joining and hence despite this petition for consideration of his claim for the purpose of regularization with effect from the date his juniors were first given regular appointment in in the year 1996.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that since petitioner has already approached the authority competent in the matter namely the respondent no. 2 who may be directed to dispose of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Although in this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, but since the question of seniority and appointment according to that became a question of fact to be determined by the authority on the basis of relevant records and material available before it, may involve also fixing the place of the petitioner in the list of duly appointed Collection Peons in the district. Further in the face of the fact that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2018, I consider it appropriate that the matter is examined at the first instance by the Collector/ District Magistrate, Gorakhpur.
This petition is accordingly, disposed of with direction to the respondent District Magistrate/ Collector, Gorakhpur to decide the claim of the petitioner for regularization with effect from 1996 when his juniors were given regular appointment within a period of two months of presentation of certified copy of this order. Needless to add that the order to be passed by the authority shall be reasoned and speaking one and especially deciding and adjudicating the issue raised by the petitioner that his claim for regular appointment was arbitrarily and discriminately ignored while his juniors came to be appointed on regular post with effect from 1996, 1997 and 1998.Since petitioner had joined under protest his claim shall not get any way affected for his retirement from service.
Order Date :- 6.8.2025 IrfanUddin