Allahabad High Court
State Of ... vs Kallo on 22 October, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 417 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Forest Lko.And Ors. Respondent :- Kallo Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Hanumant Lal Yadav,Vidya Bhushan Pandey Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, holding brief of Sri K.P. Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State appellants. No one has appeared for the respondent.
Present special appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 1145 (S/S) of 2004 by which the learned Writ Court has issued to following directions;
"Having regard to above discussions on the controversy, this Court would issue the following general directions:
(1) The daily wage employees working on the roll of State Government are bound to be paid the sum of monthly wages before the end of 15th day of every succeeding month at the prescribed rate revised from time to time without making any deduction of the national and gazetted holidays.
(2) The monthly wages earned by daily wage employees be paid to them by transfer in their bank accounts within the time period as mentioned in the first direction.
(3) The record of daily wage employees be maintained accurately by indicating his/her name, rate at which amount is paid, date of actual payment and the account number of daily wage employee apart from the details contained in the chart discussed hereinabove.
(4) Sanction of supernumerary posts be processed and finalised for the regularisation of eligible daily wage employees by the respective departments not later than a period of six months and requisition forwarded by the respective departments may accordingly be finalised and any dereliction of this duty would entitle the employee to claim all the service benefits from the due date.
Insofar as the case at hand is concerned, the opposite parties are directed to treat the petitioner as eligible for the purpose of consideration of her candidature for regularisation on a Group-D post and accordingly the requisition forwarded for the sanction of supernumerary posts be treated modified and the same be processed and finalised by including the name of the petitioner. The entire exercise for regularisation of services shall be completed not later than a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of tis judgement, failing which all benefits as have been provided for in the general directions issued hereinabove shall equally accrue to the petitioner. In case requisition for approval of supernumerary posts has not been forwarded to the State Government till date, the exercise be finalised forthwith.
A copy of this judgement be also forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., to ensure monitoring of the cause of daily wagers in the light of general directions issued hereinabove.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to cost. "
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that on 28.08.2018 when the matter was listed for hearing this Court after perusing the order passed by the learned Writ Court refused to grant stay in respect of the directions which relates to the respondent writ petition and directed the State appellants to comply with the said direction. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the order of learned Writ Court for regularization of the respondent petitioner and other similarly situated workers the case was considered and on 10.01.2019 direction has been issued to constitute a selection committee and, thereafter, on 15.01.2019 a five member selection committee has been constituted to determine the suitability of the candidates including the respondent petitioner and on 04.02.2019 interview has been conducted as per the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 and on the basis of the marks obtained in the interview the respondent petitioner has not been found suitable by the selection committee aforesaid.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Writ Court has been complied with and in the selection process the respondent petitioner failed to make place for himself, as such, nothing survives in this matter that can be examined by us in Appellate Jurisdiction and, in case, the respondent petitioner is aggrieved by his non-selection he is at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
In respect of the general directions issued by the learned Writ Court with regard to the similarly situated persons that were not party in the writ proceedings, learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of State of Orissa and another Vs. Mamta Mohanty, 2011 (3) SCC 436 and submitted that in absence of any material or relief claimed in the writ petition no such direction can be issued by the learned Writ Court and prays for quashment of the same.
The relevant paragraph no. 55 reads as under;
"Relief not claimed - cannot be granted:
55. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted." Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide : Sri Mahant Govind Rao Vs. Sita Ram Kesho, (1898) 25 Ind. App. 195; M/s. Trojan & Co. Vs. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235; Ishwar Dutt Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 3165; and State of Maharashtra Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 518.)"
In view of the above, we set-aside that part of the order dated 19.12.2017 by which general directions have been passed for regularization of the employee concerned, who were not party in the writ petition. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is allowed in part.
[ Irshad Ali, J. ] [ Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J. ] Order Date :- 22.10.2019 Shekhar