Allahabad High Court
Neelam Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 July, 2021
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6530 of 2021 Petitioner :- Neelam Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Gupta,Rajendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pawan Kumar Singh Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner claims to have been engaged as a casual employee in the Allahabad Development Authority in 1988. It appears that against certain supernumerary posts created under orders of the State Government petitioner's services has been regularized w.e.f. 01.02.2011 by an order of the Joint Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority. This order has been acted upon without any challenge to it. It appears that petitioner had previously instituted writ petition no.7382 of 1996, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the petitioner's representation in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1. It appears that ultimately petitioner's representation has been rejected. Such rejection order dated 31.03.2021 is under challenge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the rejection of petitioner's representation is bad in law as petitioner was entitled to be regularized from an early date.
Petition is opposed by Shri A.P. Paul, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Law is settled that regularization can be granted only in accordance with the rules framed for the purpose. Petitioner admittedly has been regularized vide order dated 01.02.2011 and the same has been acted upon. No challenge has been laid to the order of regularization on the ground that petitioner was entitled to be regularised from the previous date. Even otherwise attention of the Court has not been invited to any provision in the relevant rules for regularization where under such regularization can be claimed from a previous date. In the absence of any such provision in the rules, no interference in the order of the authority would be warranted by which petitioner's representation has been rejected.
The writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021 pks