Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Son Of Sri D.P. ... vs Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest ... on 17 October, 2005

Rakesh Shukla vs Principal Secy. Forest And Others on 11 January, 2019

16. The above judgment in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest (supra) came up for consideration, in intra-Court appeals, before a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandradhud, C.J. (as His Lordship then was) and Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. Appeals were decided vide judgment dated 24.09.2015, State of U.P. and others vs. Chhiddi and another, 2015(4) UPLBEC 3141. Division Bench held that under Rule 4(1)(a) of Rules, 2001 requirement for consideration for regularization are, (i) the person should have been directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group 'D' post before 29.06.1991; (ii) he should be continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of Rules, 2001, i.e., 21.12.2001; and, (iii) such person should have possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for Group 'D' post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under relevant service rules. The judgment of learned Single Judge in so far as it has dispensed with requirement of qualification for regularization, was assailed before Division Bench. Issue up for consideration before Division, as quoted in para 30 of judgment, reads as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - S Agarwal - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Others vs Chhiddi & Another on 24 September, 2015

This Special Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 17 October 2005 rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21137 of 2003 that was filed by the respondents in this Special Appeal. This petition had been connected with Writ Petition No.48322 of 2000 (Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Vs. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P. Lucknow) and a number of other writ petitions. All the petitions have been decided by a common judgment and the decision is reported in (2005) 3 UPLBEC 25271.
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 8 - D Gupta - Full Document

Lavkush Tiwari And 1486 Others vs The State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 May, 2025

3. Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007 was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17-10-2005 in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Conservator of Forest [Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Conservator of Forest, 2005 SCC OnLine All 2346] . The said writ petitions were filed by daily-wagers working in Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts in the Forest Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Regularisation of services and equal pay for equal work were the reliefs that were sought by the petitioners in those writ petitions. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by directing the State Government to reconsider the petitioners therein for regularisation of their services, ignoring artificial breaks and by relaxing the minimum educational qualifications and the physical endurance requirements prescribed by the service rules. The Selection Committee was directed to reconsider candidature of all the petitioners therein for regularisation. Such of those persons who were found eligible for regularisation were directed to be regularised in the vacancies that may arise in the future in their respective divisions. There was a further direction that the petitioners therein shall be continued on daily wages till their regularisation and be paid a minimum of the pay scales.
Allahabad High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ummat Ali vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 November, 2019

"Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. According to chart submitted along-with rejoinder affidavit, which was prepared by the forest department, the petitioner has worked continuously from the year 1991-92 to 2001-02, however, there was some gap. In the rule U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Rules, 2001, it has not been mentioned that the same would be applicable, who have worked continuously since or before 29.6.2001 till 21.12.2001. Since the petitioner was working in the department and there was some artificial break hence it is clear that there was requirement of the work and he was working for more than 22 years. According to petitioner, he is still working and getting minimum wages. Hence he is entitled for regularisation The respondents, concerned are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation, in accordance with Rule, 2001 in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in case of Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (1) UPLBEC 498 and Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Vs. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow and others 2005 (3) UPPLBEC 2527 and will pass a fresh appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Jai Narayan Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And Others on 26 August, 2022

6. In rejoinder learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that subsequently after filing of above referred counter affidavit name of the petitioner alongwith others were put in the list employees found fit for regularization, still the claim of petitioner was not considered. He further submitted that breaks, if any, are artificial which could be condoned in view of a judgment passed by this Court in Visheshwar vs. Principal Secretary, Forest Anubhag-3 and others (Writ Petition No. 47568 of 2002), decided on 29.11.2004 as well as Jaglal and others vs. Director of Horticulture, U.P. Government, Lucknow, 2003(3) ESC 1745, which are followed in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow and others, (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2527, that:
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Ram Nath Verma & 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 19 May, 2017

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the directions of this Court; the issue of the continuous working of the petitioners could not have been re-opened in view of the direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3201 (S/S) of 2007, wherein the continuance of the petitioner was considered by this Court in terms of Rule-4 of the the Rules, 2001. He lastly urged that continuance of service has also been considered by this Court in the case of Janardan Yadav v. State of U.P., (2008) 1 UPLBEC 498; and Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow and others, (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2527.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P K Baghel - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh vs State Of U.P.Through Prin Secy Finance ... on 25 September, 2019

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."
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next