Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Agriculture ... vs Mohd. Israel And Ors. on 11 July, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 281 of 2019 Appellant :- State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Agriculture Lucknow And Ors. Respondent :- Mohd. Israel And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Girish Chandra Verma Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants and Sri Girish Chandra Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents on the application for condonation of delay [C. M. Application No.76857 of 2019] as well as on the merits of Appeal.
The Special Appeal filed by the State is barred by 93 days.
On due consideration of the reason, we allow the application for condonation of delay and condone the delay.
This Special Appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.3.2019 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.1335 (SS) of 2019, Mohd. Israel and six others v. State of U.P. and others whereby the Writ Court allowed the writ petition considering the fact that the respondents-writ petitioners were initially appointed between 1.12.1996 and 1.1.1998. When they were stopped to work in the year 1999, they challenged the said action by filing Writ Petition No.2428 (SS) of 1999 and on 14.1.2000, the learned Writ Court passed an interim order to the effect that if work and post is available, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue and be paid salary. Thereafter on 27.4.2000, another interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners directing the opposite parties that if the persons junior to the petitioners have been allowed to work the petitioners shall also be allowed to work.
In spite of interim orders and when they were not permitted to work, they challenged the said action by filing Contempt Petition No.1263 of 2000. On 16.9.2003, the Deputy Director (Agriculture) who was personally present before the Contempt Court gave an undertaking/statement that they would be permitted to resume duty from tomorrow, i.e., 17.9.2003. Pursuant to the order dated 16.9.2003, the petitioners were joined the duties from 20.9.2003 to 22.9.2003.
The learned Writ Court considering the aforesaid fact so also the 2016 Regularization Rules allowed the writ petition vide order dated 6.3.2019 which is impugned in this Appeal and directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization from the date juniors to them have been regularized and the whole exercise shall be completed within a period of one month. Till their regularization, the opposite parties shall pay the minimum of existing pay scale to them pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court dated 22.1.2014.
The aforesaid order is challenged on the ground that as per 2016 Regularization Rules, the cut off date was 31.12.2001. Since the writ petitioners were not working on the said date, they were not entitled for any benefit.
It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners were engaged between 1996 and 1998. Though the interim orders were passed in their favour in the years 1999 and 2000, yet they were not permitted to work and when the Officer concerned gave an undertaking in a contempt proceeding, they were permitted to work.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the learned Writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regularization as per 2016 Regularization Rules and pass appropriate orders. No case is made out to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Writ Court in this intra-Court appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
.
[Jaspreet Singh, J.] [Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.] Order Date :- 11.7.2019 lakshman