Allahabad High Court
Amarjeet Singh vs State Of U.P.Through Prin Secy Finance ... on 25 September, 2019
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7554 of 2003 Petitioner :- Amarjeet Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin Secy Finance And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Pt.S.Chandra,Rajni Singh,Ranjit Singh,Sandeep Kumar Singh,Som Kartik Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of cetiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 29.08.2003, passed by the Director, U.P. State Lotteries, i.e. opposite party no. 2, as contained in Annexure No. 1, to this writ petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect and not to implement the impugned order dated 29.08.2003 passed by opposite party no. 2, as contained in Annexure No. 1, to this writ petition.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the regular prescribed salary to petitioner as Class-IV employee in the department and opposite parties further may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to absorb the petitioner as regular Class-IV employee in the department and pay him all the benefits as regular counter parts are getting in the department w.e.f. 21.12.2001 and the arrear of salary also may be paid along with appropriate interest.
(v) issue a suitable order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and allow the petition of the petitioner with cost."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been regularized vide order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Director of Internal Accounts and Audits, U.P., Directorate, U.P. He has also relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of "Ram Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (3) ADJ" and relied the para 5 which is quoted as under:
"Petitioner admittedly was appointed on 01.01.1987 as such the aforesaid rule is clearly applied in his case. The requirement of the rule is that the petitioner should have continued in service on the date of commencement of this rule. What has been contemplated is that on the date when the aforesaid rule has come into force, he should be in the service. The rule making Body was aware of the fact that the appointment made on daily wage basis, such interruption of periodical breaks are inherent. What is emphasized is that the persons who are working continuously even though with breaks are required to be given benefit of regularization. A person, who is entitled to be regularized under the said Rules should have been appointed prior to June, 1991 and was working on the date when the said Rule came into force. Their continuance in the department from 1991 to 2001 even with breaks is itself an indication that their services are required by the department. Very nature of their appointment being of daily wager, does not contemplate uninterrupted tenure. It is why expression has been used in the Rule that a person should be continued in service on the date when the Rule came into force. The rule does not contemplate uninterrupted continuous service. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent is reading something into the rule which is not intended thereby. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Vs. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow and others, 2005(4) ESC 2633 (All) reliance has also been placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595."
After some length of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the writ petition on merit and prayed for the direction to the concerned authority/Director of Internal Accounts and Audits Directorate, U.P. to decide his claim of regularization afresh ignoring the impugned order dated 29.07.2003 which is appended as Annexure-1 to the petition. He has further submitted that opposite party no.2/the Director U.P. State Lotteries has been merged in the office of Internal Accounts and Audits Directorate, U.P. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner in the light of the existing rules.
Considering the innocuous prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director of Internal Accounts and Audits, U.P., Directorate, U.P. to submit a detailed representation stating therein all grievances along with the certified copy of the order within a period of 15 days from today. If the petitioner has submitted the said representation within a period of 15 days from today to the Director of Internal Accounts and Audits, U.P., Directorate, U.P., he is directed to decide the same while giving the reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and rule exists ignoring the impugned order dated 29.08.2003 which is appended as Annexure-1 to the petition.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 shravan