Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And Another vs Ajay Kumar Mishra And 2 Others on 8 May, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98174-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 261 of 2023 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Mishra And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ratan Deep Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Shukla,Pranab Kumar Ganguli Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2022, whereby the claim of the petitioners for grant of benefit of regularization in terms of rules pertaining to 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 post (Outside The Purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2016') had been allowed noticing only the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, without recording any finding on the merits of the claim of the petitioners for regularization. Only reasoning given in the judgment impugned is as under:-
"A perusal of the order impugned dated 13.06.2022, it is clear that the benefit as accorded to the three other persons and recorded above, has not been granted to the petitioners, as such the order dated 13.06.2022 is set aside with direction to the respondent no. 2 to pass fresh orders in the case of the petitioners giving them the benefit similar to the one accorded to the three persons, recorded above. The said order shall be passed by the respondent no. 2 with all expedition, preferably within a period of two months from today. "
We may record that the claim of writ-petitioners cannot be decided on the plea that other persons had been accorded the same benefit, without examining the eligibility of the petitioner/person particularly for regularization. The learned Single Judge appears to have been swayed away by the fact that the claim of the petitioners for regularization have been rejected on account of the order passed by the contempt court in a contempt application preferred by the writ-petitioners. However, it is relevant to note that the claim of the petitioners for regularization has not been adverted to on its own merits. The question as to whether the writ-petitioners were entitled to the benefits of Rules 2016, according to us, could not have been decided without calling for counter affidavit, for which further time was sought by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.
We may further note that in the writ petition, time for counter was granted only once, i.e. on 15.9.2022 and there was no stop order but on the request of the learned Standing Counsel to grant further time for filing counter affidavit, the writ court has rejected the request only on the ground that no counter affidavit was needed in view of the apparent facts in the writ petition.
Noticing the above facts, with due respect to the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 11.11.2022 is devoid of reasoning/findings to adjudicate the claim of the writ-petitioners for regularization. Being a non-speaking order, the same is hereby set-aside. The matter is sent back to the writ court for decision on merits after exchange of affidavits of the parties.
Learned Standing counsel shall file a counter affidavit to the writ petition within a period of three weeks from today. Two weeks, thereafter, is granted to the counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit before the writ court.
The writ court is requested to decide the matter as early as possible.
With the above directions, the appeal stands allowed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023 S.K.