Ram Gopal Gupta and others State of U.P. though Secy. P.W.D, U.P. Lucknow and v. …

behalf the writ petition was filed wages in the minimum of the pay scale admissible to regular Junior Engineers together with admissible allowances. The said order has been confirmed later on vide order dated 30.8.1993. The petitioners and other similarly situated persons filed writ petitions No.3239, 5224, 5223, 5222 (S/S) of 1995 and 2470 (S/S) of 1996 praying for regular scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300 payable to Junior Engineers and also to restrain the respondents from terminating their services. In the said writ petitions, the benefit of order dated 24.3.1993 passed in Writ Petition No.27367 of 1991 to the petitioners was given. In the meantime, some advertisement was issued which was challenged by the Association of non-regularised diploma holder engineers by means of writ petition No.556 of 1995 in which this Court has directed respondents vide order dated 9.3.1995 to consider the case of the petitioners before making any selection. The said order has been confirmed in the special appeal No.82 of 1995. The writ petitions No.3239, 5224, 5223 and 5222 (S/S) of 1995 were disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation under 1979 amended Regularisation Rules vide orders dated 4.1.2006 and 8.2.2006. The State Government Vide order dated 17.2.2006 has taken a decision to regularisse the services of the petitioners along with others on the 5 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 post of Junior Engineer. Consequently, vide various office memorandums/regularisation orders dated 11.8.2006 and

6.9.2006, the services of the petitioners and other similarly circumstanced Junior Engineers were regualrised from the date of issuance of the orders and not as per 2001 amended Regularisation Rules.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that it has always been the claim of the petitioners for regularization on completion of the necessary period of service under Amended Regularization Rules, 2001 but it was on account of the lapse on the part of the respondents that they never took up the case for regularization and it is accordingly after a long lapse of time, the services of the petitioners were regularized. It is in this regard that similarly situated person namely, Raj Bahadur Pastor, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2020 and the post retiral dues were not given to him preferred a writ petition being Writ-A No. 3660 of 2021 for seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him post retiral benefits and the same was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated

19.8.2021 with a direction to the respondents to include the services rendered by the petitioner of the said petition from

1.1.1989 to 31.12.2018, i.e. prior to his regularization, towards qualifying service, and take a decision for payment of pension and other retiral dues. The State Government being aggrieved by the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 19.08.2021 filed a special appeal being Special Appeal No. 21 of 2022 before the Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad, which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 27.01.2022 where this Court after looking into all the aspects of the matter including the rules pertaining to the claim of the government servant for regularization disposed of the writ petition with following directions in paragraph no. 48 :- 6 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 "48. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of respondent/petitioner to be regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in light of the order of the writ court dated

21.2.1997 or in any event prior to regular appointment made in permanent or temporary vacancy in accordance with relevant service rules is liable to be considered by the Chief Engineer concerned in light of our above observations within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Chief Engineer. The authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001, since the benefit of regularization in any event will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The appellants, therefore, are commanded to extend all service and retiral benefits, which are found due and payable to the respondent/petitioner within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. The instant special appeal, is therefore, disposed off in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs."

8. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11915 of 2022 was filed against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2022 (supra), which has been dismissed by Supreme Court. The revision and curative petition too were dismissed by the Apex Court.

9. In a bunch of special Appeals, leading special appeal No.56 of 2022 Sri Kamrul Haq and others versus State of U.P. and others filed by identically circumstanced Junior Engineers working in P.W.D., a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 while following judgment and order dated 27.1.2022 passed by the Division Bench at Allahabad in special No.21 of 2022 (supra) extended the same benefits to the appellants of Special No.56 of 2022 and other connected special appeals. Special Leave Petition © No.25700 of 2024 filed by the State Government has been dismissed vide order dated

13.8.2024. However, the benefit of orders passed by this Court in the special appeals which have been affirmed by the Supreme Court have not been given to the petitioners of these writ petitions, hence these writ petitions. 7 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024

10.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the special leave petition has been dismissed, the petitioners preferred fresh representation for providing benefit accruing from the judgment and orders dated 27.1.2022 and 3.4.2024 passed by Division Benches of this Court. It was pointed out in those representations that since the matter has attained finality upto the Supreme Court on passing orders dated 13.8.2024 dismissing he special leave petition filed against the order dated 3.4.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to be regularised in terms of 2001 Amended Regularisation Rules. It is further submitted that a letter dated 6.9.2024 (Annexure RA- 1) was sent by the Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D., Lucknow to the Principal Secretary, P.W.D. wherein it has been admitted that in case the judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 passed in special Appeal No.56 and other connected special appeals is complied with, the benefit of the same would have to be extended to all the similarly situated Junior Engineers who have been regularised by virtue of G.O. dated 17.2.2006. It is submitted that on 5.3.2025, office orders have been passed by respondents in compliance of judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 passed by this court modifying/altering the date of regularisation of the appellants in special Appeal Nos.56 and other connected special appeals treating them to have been regularised from 20.12.2001. It is further submitted that the aforesaid judgments dated

27.1.2022 and 3.4.2024 (supra) are judgments in rem. Therefore, as per law declared by this court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, it has to be applied to all similarly circumstanced employees without there being any need to each employee to file successive petition for grant of same relief. It is submitted that the employees working under the same employer, i.e. the State should be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and same treatment and the State, being a model employer, cannot discriminate inter se between its own 8 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 employees. The petitioners seek parity with the aforesaid employees who were working on the same post in the department and have been regularized in pursuance to the provisions of 2001 Amended Regularization Rules. They are entitled to the same benefit which have been given to all similarly situated Junior Engineers working in the Public Works Department in compliance of the judgment and orders dated 27.1.2022 and 3.4.2024 passed in Special Appeals Nos. 21 and 56 of 2022. There cannot be different parameters in regard to similarly situated employees who are working under the same employer and any differential treatment would tantamount to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

11. Learned standing counsel has opposed the petitions and submitted that while dismissing special Leave to Appeal © No.11915 of 2022 State of U.P. versus Raj Bahadur Pastor, the question of law has been kept open by Supreme Court. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners is on different footing and they cannot claim benefit of judgment and order passed in Special No.21 of 2022 State of U.P. versus Raj Bahadur Pastor. In the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor, certain persons have been regularised before the regularization of Raj Bahadur Pastor whereas in the case in hand, prior to the regularization order dated 6.9.2006 and after 20.12.2001, no one similar to the petitioners has been regularised. It is further submitted that Rule 4(iii) has not been considered in its correct perspective. These bunch of writ petitions relates to the Public Works Department and not to the department of Irrigation or Minor Irrigation. No regular appointment has been made before issuance of regularization order dated 6.9.2006. Backdating of regularization order can only be done if there is a provision in the Rule itself or in view of the conditions settled by precedents. It is submitted that the Division Bench while allowing the special appeal No.56 of 2022 and other connected special appeals in the light of Raj Bahadur Pastor’s 9 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 case could not have modified the date of regularization contrary to the provisions of law. It is next submitted that the Government Order dated 17.2.2006 has not been considered in its correct perspective and it is only after 17.2.2006 the status of the writ petitioners have been treated to be ad hoc employees for the purpose of consideration for regularization under the appropriate Regularization Rules. It is submitted that unlike in the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor, there has not been an inordinate long delay in regularizing the services of the petitioners in furtherance of 2001 amended Regularization Rules amended from 20.12.2001 and without challenging the G.O. dated 17.2.2006, the present writ petitions will not be maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.

12. I have considered the submission(s) and perused the record.

13.Rule 2(iii) of 2001 Amended Regularization Rules notified on

20.12.2001 indicates specific intent by the statute for consideration to be made before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the service rules. The said rule is extracted below : "2(iii). Any person who - has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders." A perusal of above extracted rule shows that any person who has completed three years continuous service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as the case may be on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy. 10 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 As regards the petitioners, they were regularised vide regularization orders passed in the year 2006 which are on record as Annexure No.5 to the petition, filed collectively. Thus, a conscious decision has been taken by the respondents by providing the benefit of 2001 amended Regularization Rules and by treating the petitioners to be ad hoc employees, however, from the year 2006.

14.In view of orders passed in earlier petition filed by Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and Writ Petition No.2605 (S/S) of 1991 Yogesh Srivastava versus State of U.P. and others and writ Petition No.1400 of 1991 Virendra Kumar Sonkar versus State of U.P. and others wherein directions have been issued by the court which were never set aside, hence, it was incumbent on the respondents to have complied with those directions at the earliest. Under Rule 2(iii), the respondents were under an obligation to have considered the case of the petitioners for regular appointment immediately after they have completed three years of continuous service. Merely on the basis that the petitioners had not approached this court for their regularization and they were not party to the petitions earlier filed cannot be a ground for not providing the same benefits of regularization as per 2001 amended Regularization Rules as have been granted to the other similarly situated employees.

15.So far as the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel are concerned, while passing the judgment in Raj Bahadur Pastor’s case (supra), the Division Bench of this court at Allahabad in its order dated 27.1.2022 has considered those aspects. Timely consideration of the case of the petitioners for regularization is the issue before this court. Any denial from that means otherwise denying them the service as well as retiral benefits only because of casual approach of the department. 11 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 Relevant paras 44 to 48 of the order dated 27.1.2022 (supra) are extracted below : “44. The fact that the above rule requires consideration for regularization against permanent or temporary vacancy, before any regular appointment is made in accordance with relevant service rule is of importance and cannot be ignored. The rule making authority was conscious that non consideration of claim for regularization notwithstanding the existence of rule for such purpose may adversely affect the adhoc employee, in the matter of determination of seniority etc. and, therefore, made a specific provision for such regularization under the rules to be considered prior to any regular appointment made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules. Denial of timely consideration in accordance with the rules for regularization may otherwise deny service and retiral benefits to adhoc employees only because of administrative lethargy on part of the department concerned in processing such claim.

45. No valid reasons have otherwise been disclosed for non consideration of claim of respondent/petitioner for regularization after 20.12.2001, particularly when the order dated

21.2.1997 already existed of this Court for regularizing his services. The only plea taken in the counter affidavit to justify belated consideration for regularization is that the State Government directed such claim to be considered only vide order 7.9.2018. This plea of the appellant to explain the delay in consideration of claim for regularization is noticed only to be rejected.

46. The regularization rules notified on 20.12.2001 were applicable in respect of all adhoc appointments made prior to 30.6.1998 on posts falling within the purview of the Public Service Commission which included the department of minor irrigation as well and there existed no specific need of any further Administrative/Government order to be issued for the rules of regularization to be given effect to. The post of Junior Engineer in the Department of Minor Irrigation was clearly a post covered by the notification dated 20.12.2001 and issuance of the direction contained in the government order dated 7.9.2018 was not essential and at best reminded the authorities to act as per the notification dated 20.12.2001. Services of various other persons such as Prabhu Nath Singh, Shailendra Pratap Singh, etc. were otherwise regularized much prior to 7.9.2018. The argument that this was done in compliance of the court's order does not inspire confidence as the direction of court existed in favour of respondent/petitioner to be considered for regularization from 1997 itself. The authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in the matter of consideration of case for regularization under the orders of court. The authorities of the State, therefore, are not justified in denying consideration to the case of respondent appellant for regularization soon after issuance of notification dated 20.12.2001 and in any view before making any regular appointment in accordance with the relevant service rules by virtue of amended rule 2 (iii).

47. Viewed from such intendment in the rules of regularization notified on 20.12.2001 the action of appellant authorities in not considering petitioner's claim for regularization within a reasonable period despite an order of the competent court cannot be approved. 12 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024

48. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of respondent/petitioner to be regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in light of the order of the writ court dated 21.2.1997 or in any event prior to regular appointment made in permanent or temporary vacancy in accordance with relevant service rules is liable to be considered by the Chief Engineer concerned in light of our above observations within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Chief Engineer. The authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001, since the benefit of regularization in any event will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The appellants, therefore, are commanded to extend all service and retiral benefits, which are found due and payable to the respondent/petitioner within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. The instant special appeal, is therefore, disposed off in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs. “

16.Seeking parity of the order passed in Raj Bahadur Pastor’s case (supra), the employees of Public Works Department approached a Division Bench of this Court via special appeal No.56 of 2022 and connected special appeals which were decided by judgment and order dated 3.4.2024. Relevant part of the order dated 3.4.2024 is reproduced as below : “29. Having taken the note of the aforesaid, this Court finds that in so far as the present appellants are concerned, their case is also similar to the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra).

28. In so far as the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the decision of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) is not applicable to the present appellants, nor they can be given the benefit thereof, for the reason that the appellants herein were not appointed on ad hoc basis is fallacious for the reason that the order of regularization dated 06.09.2006 which has been brought on record as annexure no.16, clearly indicates that a conscious decision was taken by the department extending the benefit of the Rules of 1979 and treating the appellants to be on ad hoc basis……………....

30. Thus, it would be seen that the appellants herein were granted the benefit and were treated as ad hoc employees as the same is mentioned in the order of regularization itself. Accordingly, once the appellants had been regularized on 06.09.2006 treating them to be ad hoc employees and in any case in view of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in earlier petition which was filed by the Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and Writ Petition No.2605 (S/S) of 1991, Yogesh Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others and Writ Petition No.1400 of 1991, Virendra Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & others wherein directions have been issued by the Court which were never set aside, hence it was incumbent upon the respondents to have complied with the same at the earliest and even though the regularization was made in the year 2006 yet they were entitled to the benefit of Amendment of 2001 made in the Rules 1979. 13 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024

31. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that in the regularization order, the relevant part of which has been reproduced hereinabove it did treat the appellants as ad hoc employees, hence there can be no reason for this Court to differ or to take a different view other than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra), Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 which admittedly has been affirmed by the Apex Court.

32. Accordingly, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions and this Court is of the view that the appellants though regularized in the year 2006, their regularization order dated 06.09.2006 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and treat the case of the appellants to have been regularized with effect from 20.12.2001 and thereafter the Authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which the regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001 since the benefit of regularization will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The State Authorities shall also extend all service and retiral benefits which are found due and payable to the appellants and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks.”

17.In these cases also, the petitioners who were working as Diploma Holder daily wager/work charge have been treated as ad hoc employees and have been given the benefit of regularization w.e.f. 2006. The date of regularization varies of each individual. Relevant extract of one such order dated 11.8.2008 by which the services of the petitioners were regularized is extracted below : "लोक नि(cid:6)र्मा(cid:8)(cid:9)ण नि(cid:11)भ(cid:8)ग र्माें क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)रत डि(cid:19)प्लोर्मा(cid:8)ध(cid:8)री दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6)/(cid:11)क(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) कर्मा(cid:9)च(cid:8)रिरर्यों की रिरट र्य(cid:8)डिचक(cid:8) सं0 366.03/1998 र(cid:8)केश कुर्मा(cid:8)र नि$प(cid:8)ठी (cid:11) अन्र्य ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:6)े र्मा(cid:8)० उच्च न्र्य(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)लर्य इल(cid:8)ह(cid:8)ब(cid:8)द द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) प(cid:8)रिरत नि(cid:6)ण(cid:9)र्य निां(cid:6)(cid:8)क .11.04 र्य(cid:8)डिचक(cid:8) सं० 6737/1998 हृदर्य (cid:6)(cid:8)थ चौबे ए(cid:11)ं 107 अन्र्य ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र र्माें र्मा(cid:8)० उच्र्य न्र्य(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)लर्य इल(cid:8)ह(cid:8)ब(cid:8)द द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) प(cid:8)रिरत नि(cid:6)ण(cid:9)र्य निद० 07,03.2005 तथ(cid:8) रिरट र्य(cid:8)डिचक(cid:8) सं० 37582/1998 र(cid:8)र्मासिंसह (cid:11) 17 अन्र्य ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र र्माें र्मा(cid:8)० उच्च न्र्य(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)लर्य इल(cid:8)ह(cid:8)ब(cid:8)द द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) प(cid:8)रिरत नि(cid:6)ण(cid:9)र्य निद० 25.04.2005 को संज्ञ(cid:8)(cid:6) र्माें लेते हुर्ये, श(cid:8)स(cid:6)(cid:8)देश सं० 877/23-7-05-198 (कोट(cid:9))/06 निद(cid:6)(cid:8)ंक 17 फर(cid:11)री, 2006 द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) लोक नि(cid:6)र्मा(cid:8)(cid:9)ण नि(cid:11)भ(cid:8)ग र्माें क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)रत दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6) (cid:11) (cid:11)क(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) के 197 कर्मा(cid:9)च(cid:8)रिरर्यों के नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण की क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:8)हीं उ०प्र० (लोक से(cid:11)(cid:8) आर्योग के क्षे$(cid:8)न्तग(cid:9)त पद पर) तदथ(cid:9) नि(cid:6)र्युनि=र्यों नि(cid:6)र्येर्मा(cid:8)(cid:11)ली 1979, र्यथ(cid:8) संशोडिधत नि(cid:6)र्यर्मा(cid:8)(cid:11)ली 2001 के नि(cid:6)र्यर्मा-4 के अन्तग(cid:9)त तदथ(cid:9) क(cid:8)र्मिर्माक र्मा(cid:8)(cid:6)ते हुए उ= नि(cid:6)र्यर्मा(cid:8)(cid:11)ली र्माें नि(cid:6)निहत प्र(cid:8)नि(cid:11)ध(cid:8)(cid:6)ों के अ(cid:6)ुस(cid:8)र क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:8)ही निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8)(cid:6)े क(cid:8) अ(cid:6)ुर्माोद(cid:6) र्ज(cid:8)री निकर्य(cid:8) गर्य(cid:8) है। श(cid:8)स(cid:6)(cid:8)देश निद० 17.02.06 र्माें नि(cid:6)निहत नि(cid:6)द@श(cid:8)(cid:6)ुस(cid:8)र चर्य(cid:6) सनिर्मात क(cid:8) गठ(cid:6) क(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)(cid:9)लर्य ज्ञ(cid:8)प सं० 1967 ई(cid:19)ी/319 ई(cid:19)ी/06 निद० 07.03.06 के द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) निकर्य(cid:8) गर्य(cid:8) है। सनिर्माडित द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) क्षे$ीर्य अडिधक(cid:8)रिरर्यों से नि(cid:11)भ(cid:8)ग र्माें क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)रत डि(cid:19)प्लोर्मा(cid:8)ध(cid:8)री दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6)/बक(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) कर्मा(cid:9)च(cid:8)रिरर्यों के से(cid:11)(cid:8) नि(cid:11)(cid:11)रण ए(cid:11)ं अन्र्य र्माूल प्रर्मा(cid:8)ण प$ प्र(cid:8)प्त निकर्ये गर्ये थे। सनिर्माडित की संस्तुडित के आध(cid:8)र पर उपरो= डि(cid:19)प्लोर्मा(cid:8)ध(cid:8)री दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6) /(cid:11)क(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) कर्मा(cid:9)च(cid:8)रिरर्यों की ज्र्येष्ठत(cid:8) सूची र्ज(cid:8)री की गर्यी है। सनिर्माडित की संस्तुडितर्यों को स्(cid:11)ीक(cid:8)र करते हुए लोक नि(cid:6)र्मा(cid:8)(cid:9)ण नि(cid:11)भ(cid:8)ग र्माें नि(cid:11)च(cid:8)र(cid:8)धी(cid:6)ं डि(cid:19)प्लोर्मा(cid:8)ध(cid:8)री दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6)/ (cid:11)क(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) कर्मिर्मार्यों को अ(cid:11)र अभिभर्यन्त(cid:8) (सिसनि(cid:11)ल) के पद पर (cid:11)ेत(cid:6)र्मा(cid:8)(cid:6) रू०- 5000-150-8000 पर नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8)(cid:6)े के आदेश नि(cid:6)म्(cid:6) शत(cid:9) ए(cid:11)ं प्रडितबन्धों के अ(cid:6)ुरूप् एत द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) र्ज(cid:8)री निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8)ते है। 14 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024

1. नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8) रहे, र(cid:8)र्जकीर्य से(cid:11)कों को श(cid:8)स(cid:6) द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) संर्मार्य-सर्मार्य पर अ(cid:6)ुर्मा(cid:6)र्य र्माहंग(cid:8)ई भत्त(cid:8) ए(cid:11)ं अन्र्य से(cid:11)(cid:8) ल(cid:8)भ देर्य होंगे।

2. र्यह आदेश क्षे$ीर्य अडिधक(cid:8)रिरर्यों से प्र(cid:8)प्त अभिभलेखों के परीक्षण और सनिर्माडित की संस्तुडितर्यों के आध(cid:8)र पर र्ज(cid:8)री निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8) रहे है। र्यनिद तथ्र्यों र्माें कोई असत्र्यत्त(cid:8) तथ(cid:8) गम्भीर 'प्रडितकूल तथ्र्य संज्ञ(cid:8)(cid:6) र्माें आते हैं तो उपरो= आदेश स्(cid:11)तः नि(cid:6)रस्त सर्माझे र्ज(cid:8)र्येंगे, इसके लिलर्ये कोई द(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:8) स्(cid:11)ीक(cid:8)र (cid:6)हीं निकर्य(cid:8) र्ज(cid:8)र्येग(cid:8)।

3. उपरो=. र(cid:8)र्जकीर्य से(cid:11)कों की तै(cid:6)(cid:8)ती के आदेश अलग से र्ज(cid:8)री निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8) रहे हैं। नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण की डितभिथ र(cid:8)र्जकीर्य से(cid:11)कों के तै(cid:6)(cid:8)तीं स्थ(cid:8)(cid:6) पर क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)भ(cid:8)र ग्रहण कर(cid:6)े की डितभिथ से र्मा(cid:8)(cid:6)े र्ज(cid:8)र्येंगे।

4. उपरो= नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण के आदेश र्मा(cid:8)० उच्च न्र्य(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)लर्य इल(cid:8)ह(cid:8)ब(cid:8)द खण्(cid:19)पीठ लख(cid:6)ऊ र्माें रिरट र्य(cid:8)डिचक(cid:8) सं0 4315/2006 (एस०एस) श्री अनि(cid:6)ल कुर्मा(cid:8)र चौधरी (cid:11) अन्र्य 10 र्य(cid:8)चीगण ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:11) अन्र्य, 4687/2006 (एस०एस०) र्माोहम्र्माद (cid:6)ईर्मा (cid:11) अन्र्य र्य(cid:8)चीगण ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:11) अन्र्य, 3909/2006 (एस०एस०) र्माोहम्र्माद अर्जीज़ (cid:11) अन्र्य 3 र्य(cid:8)चीगण ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:11) अन्र्य तथ(cid:8) 4580/2006 (एस०एस) श्री र्मा(cid:6)ीष कुर्मा(cid:8)र ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:11) अन्र्य र्माें प(cid:8)रिरत हो(cid:6)े (cid:11)(cid:8)ले अन्तिन्तर्मा नि(cid:6)ण(cid:9)र्य के अधी(cid:6) होंगे।" Hence, once the petitioners have been treated as ad hoc employees and regularized vide orders dated 11.8.2006 and

6.9.2006 or the date mentioned in the order of regularization of other petitioners – all in the year 2006 treating them to be ad hoc employees, coupled with the direction issued by the Court in the case of Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and Writ Petition No.2605 S/S) of 1991 Yogesh Srivastava versus State of U.P. an others and writ Petition No.1400 of 1991 Virendra Kumar Sonkar versus State of U.P. and others, it was incumbent on the respondents to have complied with those directions at the earliest. As stated above, the regularization of the petitioners has been done in the year 2006. They are entitled to the benefit of 2001 Amended Regularization Rules. Regularization orders of the petitioners are not disputed. Status of ad hoc employees given to the petitioners is also not disputed. Judgment in Raj Bahadur Pastor’s case has been upheld by Supreme Court while dismissing the special Leave Petition. Review petition as well as the curative petition too have been dismissed. The judgment rendered in Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 State of U.P. Versus Raj Bahadur Pastor has been followed 15 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 by the Division Bench of this Court and while deciding special No.56 of 2022, in para 32, the date of regularization order dated

6.9.2006 has been amended in terms of order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and direction has been issued to treat the case of the appellants to have been regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001.

18.Needless to say, the judgment rendered in Special appeal No.56 of 2022 (supra) is binding on this Court, more so in view of the fact that the special leave petition (C) Diary No.25700 of 2024 filed against judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 passed in the said Special appeal No.56 of 2022 and other connected special appeals has been dismissed affirming the judgment and order dated 3.4.2024(supra). The respondents are bound by the decision passed by this court dated 27.1.2022 and 3.4.2024 passed in special appeals and they are also entitled to be regularized in service w.e.f. 20.12.2001 as the appellants of the above referred special appeals have been regularised giving the benefit of Third Amendment Rules of 2001. The State cannot discriminate with the present petitioners and is bound to extend the benefit to all similarly situated employees, including the petitioners.

19. In Lt. Col Suprita Chandel versus Union of India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664, it has been held by Supreme Court that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. In another case Union of India versus Munshi Ram (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1493, it has been held that the State cannot treat similarly situated employees differently. Denial of similar benefits to similarly situated employees would amount to violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Financial burden is not a ground to 16 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 deny benefit (paras 29, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 60 emphasised).

20.In light of the discussion made above, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 passed in Special Appeal No.56 of 2022 and other connected matters and order dated 28.4.2022 (supra) is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondents to amend the date of regularization of the petitioners with retrospective effect and treat the petitioners to have been regularised w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in accordance with Rule 2(iii) of U.P. (post within the purview of Public Service commission) Adhoc Appointment Regularization Rules, 1979 as amended (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 and grant them all consequential benefits. September 9, 2025 kkb/ (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J)

behalf the writ petition was filed wages in the minimum of the pay scale admissible to regular Junior Engineers together with admissible allowances. The said order has been confirmed later on vide order dated 30.8.1993. The petitioners and other similarly situated persons filed writ petitions No.3239, 5224, 5223, 5222 (S/S) of 1995 and 2470 (S/S) of 1996 praying for regular scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300 payable to Junior Engineers and also to restrain the respondents from terminating their services. In the said writ petitions, the benefit of order dated 24.3.1993 passed in Writ Petition No.27367 of 1991 to the petitioners was given. In the meantime, some advertisement was issued which was challenged by the Association of non-regularised diploma holder engineers by means of writ petition No.556 of 1995 in which this Court has directed respondents vide order dated 9.3.1995 to consider the case of the petitioners before making any selection. The said order has been confirmed in the special appeal No.82 of 1995. The writ petitions No.3239, 5224, 5223 and 5222 (S/S) of 1995 were disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation under 1979 amended Regularisation Rules vide orders dated 4.1.2006 and 8.2.2006. The State Government Vide order dated 17.2.2006 has taken a decision to regularisse the services of the petitioners along with others on the 5 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 post of Junior Engineer. Consequently, vide various office memorandums/regularisation orders dated 11.8.2006 and

6.9.2006, the services of the petitioners and other similarly circumstanced Junior Engineers were regualrised from the date of issuance of the orders and not as per 2001 amended Regularisation Rules.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that it has always been the claim of the petitioners for regularization on completion of the necessary period of service under Amended Regularization Rules, 2001 but it was on account of the lapse on the part of the respondents that they never took up the case for regularization and it is accordingly after a long lapse of time, the services of the petitioners were regularized. It is in this regard that similarly situated person namely, Raj Bahadur Pastor, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2020 and the post retiral dues were not given to him preferred a writ petition being Writ-A No. 3660 of 2021 for seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him post retiral benefits and the same was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated

19.8.2021 with a direction to the respondents to include the services rendered by the petitioner of the said petition from

1.1.1989 to 31.12.2018, i.e. prior to his regularization, towards qualifying service, and take a decision for payment of pension and other retiral dues. The State Government being aggrieved by the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 19.08.2021 filed a special appeal being Special Appeal No. 21 of 2022 before the Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad, which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 27.01.2022 where this Court after looking into all the aspects of the matter including the rules pertaining to the claim of the government servant for regularization disposed of the writ petition with following directions in paragraph no. 48 :- 6 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 "48. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of respondent/petitioner to be regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in light of the order of the writ court dated

21.2.1997 or in any event prior to regular appointment made in permanent or temporary vacancy in accordance with relevant service rules is liable to be considered by the Chief Engineer concerned in light of our above observations within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Chief Engineer. The authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001, since the benefit of regularization in any event will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The appellants, therefore, are commanded to extend all service and retiral benefits, which are found due and payable to the respondent/petitioner within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. The instant special appeal, is therefore, disposed off in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs."

8. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11915 of 2022 was filed against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2022 (supra), which has been dismissed by Supreme Court. The revision and curative petition too were dismissed by the Apex Court.

9. In a bunch of special Appeals, leading special appeal No.56 of 2022 Sri Kamrul Haq and others versus State of U.P. and others filed by identically circumstanced Junior Engineers working in P.W.D., a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 while following judgment and order dated 27.1.2022 passed by the Division Bench at Allahabad in special No.21 of 2022 (supra) extended the same benefits to the appellants of Special No.56 of 2022 and other connected special appeals. Special Leave Petition © No.25700 of 2024 filed by the State Government has been dismissed vide order dated

13.8.2024. However, the benefit of orders passed by this Court in the special appeals which have been affirmed by the Supreme Court have not been given to the petitioners of these writ petitions, hence these writ petitions. 7 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024

10.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the special leave petition has been dismissed, the petitioners preferred fresh representation for providing benefit accruing from the judgment and orders dated 27.1.2022 and 3.4.2024 passed by Division Benches of this Court. It was pointed out in those representations that since the matter has attained finality upto the Supreme Court on passing orders dated 13.8.2024 dismissing he special leave petition filed against the order dated 3.4.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to be regularised in terms of 2001 Amended Regularisation Rules. It is further submitted that a letter dated 6.9.2024 (Annexure RA- 1) was sent by the Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D., Lucknow to the Principal Secretary, P.W.D. wherein it has been admitted that in case the judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 passed in special Appeal No.56 and other connected special appeals is complied with, the benefit of the same would have to be extended to all the similarly situated Junior Engineers who have been regularised by virtue of G.O. dated 17.2.2006. It is submitted that on 5.3.2025, office orders have been passed by respondents in compliance of judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 passed by this court modifying/altering the date of regularisation of the appellants in special Appeal Nos.56 and other connected special appeals treating them to have been regularised from 20.12.2001. It is further submitted that the aforesaid judgments dated

27.1.2022 and 3.4.2024 (supra) are judgments in rem. Therefore, as per law declared by this court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, it has to be applied to all similarly circumstanced employees without there being any need to each employee to file successive petition for grant of same relief. It is submitted that the employees working under the same employer, i.e. the State should be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and same treatment and the State, being a model employer, cannot discriminate inter se between its own 8 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 employees. The petitioners seek parity with the aforesaid employees who were working on the same post in the department and have been regularized in pursuance to the provisions of 2001 Amended Regularization Rules. They are entitled to the same benefit which have been given to all similarly situated Junior Engineers working in the Public Works Department in compliance of the judgment and orders dated 27.1.2022 and 3.4.2024 passed in Special Appeals Nos. 21 and 56 of 2022. There cannot be different parameters in regard to similarly situated employees who are working under the same employer and any differential treatment would tantamount to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

11. Learned standing counsel has opposed the petitions and submitted that while dismissing special Leave to Appeal © No.11915 of 2022 State of U.P. versus Raj Bahadur Pastor, the question of law has been kept open by Supreme Court. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners is on different footing and they cannot claim benefit of judgment and order passed in Special No.21 of 2022 State of U.P. versus Raj Bahadur Pastor. In the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor, certain persons have been regularised before the regularization of Raj Bahadur Pastor whereas in the case in hand, prior to the regularization order dated 6.9.2006 and after 20.12.2001, no one similar to the petitioners has been regularised. It is further submitted that Rule 4(iii) has not been considered in its correct perspective. These bunch of writ petitions relates to the Public Works Department and not to the department of Irrigation or Minor Irrigation. No regular appointment has been made before issuance of regularization order dated 6.9.2006. Backdating of regularization order can only be done if there is a provision in the Rule itself or in view of the conditions settled by precedents. It is submitted that the Division Bench while allowing the special appeal No.56 of 2022 and other connected special appeals in the light of Raj Bahadur Pastor’s 9 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 case could not have modified the date of regularization contrary to the provisions of law. It is next submitted that the Government Order dated 17.2.2006 has not been considered in its correct perspective and it is only after 17.2.2006 the status of the writ petitioners have been treated to be ad hoc employees for the purpose of consideration for regularization under the appropriate Regularization Rules. It is submitted that unlike in the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor, there has not been an inordinate long delay in regularizing the services of the petitioners in furtherance of 2001 amended Regularization Rules amended from 20.12.2001 and without challenging the G.O. dated 17.2.2006, the present writ petitions will not be maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.

12. I have considered the submission(s) and perused the record.

13.Rule 2(iii) of 2001 Amended Regularization Rules notified on

20.12.2001 indicates specific intent by the statute for consideration to be made before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the service rules. The said rule is extracted below : "2(iii). Any person who - has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders." A perusal of above extracted rule shows that any person who has completed three years continuous service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as the case may be on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy. 10 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 As regards the petitioners, they were regularised vide regularization orders passed in the year 2006 which are on record as Annexure No.5 to the petition, filed collectively. Thus, a conscious decision has been taken by the respondents by providing the benefit of 2001 amended Regularization Rules and by treating the petitioners to be ad hoc employees, however, from the year 2006.

14.In view of orders passed in earlier petition filed by Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and Writ Petition No.2605 (S/S) of 1991 Yogesh Srivastava versus State of U.P. and others and writ Petition No.1400 of 1991 Virendra Kumar Sonkar versus State of U.P. and others wherein directions have been issued by the court which were never set aside, hence, it was incumbent on the respondents to have complied with those directions at the earliest. Under Rule 2(iii), the respondents were under an obligation to have considered the case of the petitioners for regular appointment immediately after they have completed three years of continuous service. Merely on the basis that the petitioners had not approached this court for their regularization and they were not party to the petitions earlier filed cannot be a ground for not providing the same benefits of regularization as per 2001 amended Regularization Rules as have been granted to the other similarly situated employees.

15.So far as the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel are concerned, while passing the judgment in Raj Bahadur Pastor’s case (supra), the Division Bench of this court at Allahabad in its order dated 27.1.2022 has considered those aspects. Timely consideration of the case of the petitioners for regularization is the issue before this court. Any denial from that means otherwise denying them the service as well as retiral benefits only because of casual approach of the department. 11 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 Relevant paras 44 to 48 of the order dated 27.1.2022 (supra) are extracted below : “44. The fact that the above rule requires consideration for regularization against permanent or temporary vacancy, before any regular appointment is made in accordance with relevant service rule is of importance and cannot be ignored. The rule making authority was conscious that non consideration of claim for regularization notwithstanding the existence of rule for such purpose may adversely affect the adhoc employee, in the matter of determination of seniority etc. and, therefore, made a specific provision for such regularization under the rules to be considered prior to any regular appointment made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules. Denial of timely consideration in accordance with the rules for regularization may otherwise deny service and retiral benefits to adhoc employees only because of administrative lethargy on part of the department concerned in processing such claim.

45. No valid reasons have otherwise been disclosed for non consideration of claim of respondent/petitioner for regularization after 20.12.2001, particularly when the order dated

21.2.1997 already existed of this Court for regularizing his services. The only plea taken in the counter affidavit to justify belated consideration for regularization is that the State Government directed such claim to be considered only vide order 7.9.2018. This plea of the appellant to explain the delay in consideration of claim for regularization is noticed only to be rejected.

46. The regularization rules notified on 20.12.2001 were applicable in respect of all adhoc appointments made prior to 30.6.1998 on posts falling within the purview of the Public Service Commission which included the department of minor irrigation as well and there existed no specific need of any further Administrative/Government order to be issued for the rules of regularization to be given effect to. The post of Junior Engineer in the Department of Minor Irrigation was clearly a post covered by the notification dated 20.12.2001 and issuance of the direction contained in the government order dated 7.9.2018 was not essential and at best reminded the authorities to act as per the notification dated 20.12.2001. Services of various other persons such as Prabhu Nath Singh, Shailendra Pratap Singh, etc. were otherwise regularized much prior to 7.9.2018. The argument that this was done in compliance of the court's order does not inspire confidence as the direction of court existed in favour of respondent/petitioner to be considered for regularization from 1997 itself. The authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in the matter of consideration of case for regularization under the orders of court. The authorities of the State, therefore, are not justified in denying consideration to the case of respondent appellant for regularization soon after issuance of notification dated 20.12.2001 and in any view before making any regular appointment in accordance with the relevant service rules by virtue of amended rule 2 (iii).

47. Viewed from such intendment in the rules of regularization notified on 20.12.2001 the action of appellant authorities in not considering petitioner's claim for regularization within a reasonable period despite an order of the competent court cannot be approved. 12 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024

48. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of respondent/petitioner to be regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in light of the order of the writ court dated 21.2.1997 or in any event prior to regular appointment made in permanent or temporary vacancy in accordance with relevant service rules is liable to be considered by the Chief Engineer concerned in light of our above observations within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Chief Engineer. The authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001, since the benefit of regularization in any event will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The appellants, therefore, are commanded to extend all service and retiral benefits, which are found due and payable to the respondent/petitioner within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. The instant special appeal, is therefore, disposed off in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs. “

16.Seeking parity of the order passed in Raj Bahadur Pastor’s case (supra), the employees of Public Works Department approached a Division Bench of this Court via special appeal No.56 of 2022 and connected special appeals which were decided by judgment and order dated 3.4.2024. Relevant part of the order dated 3.4.2024 is reproduced as below : “29. Having taken the note of the aforesaid, this Court finds that in so far as the present appellants are concerned, their case is also similar to the case of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra).

28. In so far as the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the decision of Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra) is not applicable to the present appellants, nor they can be given the benefit thereof, for the reason that the appellants herein were not appointed on ad hoc basis is fallacious for the reason that the order of regularization dated 06.09.2006 which has been brought on record as annexure no.16, clearly indicates that a conscious decision was taken by the department extending the benefit of the Rules of 1979 and treating the appellants to be on ad hoc basis……………....

30. Thus, it would be seen that the appellants herein were granted the benefit and were treated as ad hoc employees as the same is mentioned in the order of regularization itself. Accordingly, once the appellants had been regularized on 06.09.2006 treating them to be ad hoc employees and in any case in view of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in earlier petition which was filed by the Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and Writ Petition No.2605 (S/S) of 1991, Yogesh Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others and Writ Petition No.1400 of 1991, Virendra Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & others wherein directions have been issued by the Court which were never set aside, hence it was incumbent upon the respondents to have complied with the same at the earliest and even though the regularization was made in the year 2006 yet they were entitled to the benefit of Amendment of 2001 made in the Rules 1979. 13 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024

31. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that in the regularization order, the relevant part of which has been reproduced hereinabove it did treat the appellants as ad hoc employees, hence there can be no reason for this Court to differ or to take a different view other than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Bahadur Pastor (supra), Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 which admittedly has been affirmed by the Apex Court.

32. Accordingly, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions and this Court is of the view that the appellants though regularized in the year 2006, their regularization order dated 06.09.2006 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and treat the case of the appellants to have been regularized with effect from 20.12.2001 and thereafter the Authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which the regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001 since the benefit of regularization will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The State Authorities shall also extend all service and retiral benefits which are found due and payable to the appellants and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks.”

17.In these cases also, the petitioners who were working as Diploma Holder daily wager/work charge have been treated as ad hoc employees and have been given the benefit of regularization w.e.f. 2006. The date of regularization varies of each individual. Relevant extract of one such order dated 11.8.2008 by which the services of the petitioners were regularized is extracted below : "लोक नि(cid:6)र्मा(cid:8)(cid:9)ण नि(cid:11)भ(cid:8)ग र्माें क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)रत डि(cid:19)प्लोर्मा(cid:8)ध(cid:8)री दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6)/(cid:11)क(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) कर्मा(cid:9)च(cid:8)रिरर्यों की रिरट र्य(cid:8)डिचक(cid:8) सं0 366.03/1998 र(cid:8)केश कुर्मा(cid:8)र नि$प(cid:8)ठी (cid:11) अन्र्य ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:6)े र्मा(cid:8)० उच्च न्र्य(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)लर्य इल(cid:8)ह(cid:8)ब(cid:8)द द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) प(cid:8)रिरत नि(cid:6)ण(cid:9)र्य निां(cid:6)(cid:8)क .11.04 र्य(cid:8)डिचक(cid:8) सं० 6737/1998 हृदर्य (cid:6)(cid:8)थ चौबे ए(cid:11)ं 107 अन्र्य ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र र्माें र्मा(cid:8)० उच्र्य न्र्य(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)लर्य इल(cid:8)ह(cid:8)ब(cid:8)द द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) प(cid:8)रिरत नि(cid:6)ण(cid:9)र्य निद० 07,03.2005 तथ(cid:8) रिरट र्य(cid:8)डिचक(cid:8) सं० 37582/1998 र(cid:8)र्मासिंसह (cid:11) 17 अन्र्य ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र र्माें र्मा(cid:8)० उच्च न्र्य(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)लर्य इल(cid:8)ह(cid:8)ब(cid:8)द द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) प(cid:8)रिरत नि(cid:6)ण(cid:9)र्य निद० 25.04.2005 को संज्ञ(cid:8)(cid:6) र्माें लेते हुर्ये, श(cid:8)स(cid:6)(cid:8)देश सं० 877/23-7-05-198 (कोट(cid:9))/06 निद(cid:6)(cid:8)ंक 17 फर(cid:11)री, 2006 द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) लोक नि(cid:6)र्मा(cid:8)(cid:9)ण नि(cid:11)भ(cid:8)ग र्माें क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)रत दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6) (cid:11) (cid:11)क(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) के 197 कर्मा(cid:9)च(cid:8)रिरर्यों के नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण की क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:8)हीं उ०प्र० (लोक से(cid:11)(cid:8) आर्योग के क्षे$(cid:8)न्तग(cid:9)त पद पर) तदथ(cid:9) नि(cid:6)र्युनि=र्यों नि(cid:6)र्येर्मा(cid:8)(cid:11)ली 1979, र्यथ(cid:8) संशोडिधत नि(cid:6)र्यर्मा(cid:8)(cid:11)ली 2001 के नि(cid:6)र्यर्मा-4 के अन्तग(cid:9)त तदथ(cid:9) क(cid:8)र्मिर्माक र्मा(cid:8)(cid:6)ते हुए उ= नि(cid:6)र्यर्मा(cid:8)(cid:11)ली र्माें नि(cid:6)निहत प्र(cid:8)नि(cid:11)ध(cid:8)(cid:6)ों के अ(cid:6)ुस(cid:8)र क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:8)ही निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8)(cid:6)े क(cid:8) अ(cid:6)ुर्माोद(cid:6) र्ज(cid:8)री निकर्य(cid:8) गर्य(cid:8) है। श(cid:8)स(cid:6)(cid:8)देश निद० 17.02.06 र्माें नि(cid:6)निहत नि(cid:6)द@श(cid:8)(cid:6)ुस(cid:8)र चर्य(cid:6) सनिर्मात क(cid:8) गठ(cid:6) क(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)(cid:9)लर्य ज्ञ(cid:8)प सं० 1967 ई(cid:19)ी/319 ई(cid:19)ी/06 निद० 07.03.06 के द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) निकर्य(cid:8) गर्य(cid:8) है। सनिर्माडित द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) क्षे$ीर्य अडिधक(cid:8)रिरर्यों से नि(cid:11)भ(cid:8)ग र्माें क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)रत डि(cid:19)प्लोर्मा(cid:8)ध(cid:8)री दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6)/बक(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) कर्मा(cid:9)च(cid:8)रिरर्यों के से(cid:11)(cid:8) नि(cid:11)(cid:11)रण ए(cid:11)ं अन्र्य र्माूल प्रर्मा(cid:8)ण प$ प्र(cid:8)प्त निकर्ये गर्ये थे। सनिर्माडित की संस्तुडित के आध(cid:8)र पर उपरो= डि(cid:19)प्लोर्मा(cid:8)ध(cid:8)री दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6) /(cid:11)क(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) कर्मा(cid:9)च(cid:8)रिरर्यों की ज्र्येष्ठत(cid:8) सूची र्ज(cid:8)री की गर्यी है। सनिर्माडित की संस्तुडितर्यों को स्(cid:11)ीक(cid:8)र करते हुए लोक नि(cid:6)र्मा(cid:8)(cid:9)ण नि(cid:11)भ(cid:8)ग र्माें नि(cid:11)च(cid:8)र(cid:8)धी(cid:6)ं डि(cid:19)प्लोर्मा(cid:8)ध(cid:8)री दैनि(cid:6)क (cid:11)ेत(cid:6)/ (cid:11)क(cid:9)च(cid:8)र्ज(cid:9) कर्मिर्मार्यों को अ(cid:11)र अभिभर्यन्त(cid:8) (सिसनि(cid:11)ल) के पद पर (cid:11)ेत(cid:6)र्मा(cid:8)(cid:6) रू०- 5000-150-8000 पर नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8)(cid:6)े के आदेश नि(cid:6)म्(cid:6) शत(cid:9) ए(cid:11)ं प्रडितबन्धों के अ(cid:6)ुरूप् एत द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) र्ज(cid:8)री निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8)ते है। 14 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024

1. नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8) रहे, र(cid:8)र्जकीर्य से(cid:11)कों को श(cid:8)स(cid:6) द्व(cid:8)र(cid:8) संर्मार्य-सर्मार्य पर अ(cid:6)ुर्मा(cid:6)र्य र्माहंग(cid:8)ई भत्त(cid:8) ए(cid:11)ं अन्र्य से(cid:11)(cid:8) ल(cid:8)भ देर्य होंगे।

2. र्यह आदेश क्षे$ीर्य अडिधक(cid:8)रिरर्यों से प्र(cid:8)प्त अभिभलेखों के परीक्षण और सनिर्माडित की संस्तुडितर्यों के आध(cid:8)र पर र्ज(cid:8)री निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8) रहे है। र्यनिद तथ्र्यों र्माें कोई असत्र्यत्त(cid:8) तथ(cid:8) गम्भीर 'प्रडितकूल तथ्र्य संज्ञ(cid:8)(cid:6) र्माें आते हैं तो उपरो= आदेश स्(cid:11)तः नि(cid:6)रस्त सर्माझे र्ज(cid:8)र्येंगे, इसके लिलर्ये कोई द(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:8) स्(cid:11)ीक(cid:8)र (cid:6)हीं निकर्य(cid:8) र्ज(cid:8)र्येग(cid:8)।

3. उपरो=. र(cid:8)र्जकीर्य से(cid:11)कों की तै(cid:6)(cid:8)ती के आदेश अलग से र्ज(cid:8)री निकर्ये र्ज(cid:8) रहे हैं। नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण की डितभिथ र(cid:8)र्जकीर्य से(cid:11)कों के तै(cid:6)(cid:8)तीं स्थ(cid:8)(cid:6) पर क(cid:8)र्य(cid:9)भ(cid:8)र ग्रहण कर(cid:6)े की डितभिथ से र्मा(cid:8)(cid:6)े र्ज(cid:8)र्येंगे।

4. उपरो= नि(cid:11)नि(cid:6)र्यनिर्मातीकरण के आदेश र्मा(cid:8)० उच्च न्र्य(cid:8)र्य(cid:8)लर्य इल(cid:8)ह(cid:8)ब(cid:8)द खण्(cid:19)पीठ लख(cid:6)ऊ र्माें रिरट र्य(cid:8)डिचक(cid:8) सं0 4315/2006 (एस०एस) श्री अनि(cid:6)ल कुर्मा(cid:8)र चौधरी (cid:11) अन्र्य 10 र्य(cid:8)चीगण ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:11) अन्र्य, 4687/2006 (एस०एस०) र्माोहम्र्माद (cid:6)ईर्मा (cid:11) अन्र्य र्य(cid:8)चीगण ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:11) अन्र्य, 3909/2006 (एस०एस०) र्माोहम्र्माद अर्जीज़ (cid:11) अन्र्य 3 र्य(cid:8)चीगण ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:11) अन्र्य तथ(cid:8) 4580/2006 (एस०एस) श्री र्मा(cid:6)ीष कुर्मा(cid:8)र ब(cid:6)(cid:8)र्मा उ०प्र० सरक(cid:8)र (cid:11) अन्र्य र्माें प(cid:8)रिरत हो(cid:6)े (cid:11)(cid:8)ले अन्तिन्तर्मा नि(cid:6)ण(cid:9)र्य के अधी(cid:6) होंगे।" Hence, once the petitioners have been treated as ad hoc employees and regularized vide orders dated 11.8.2006 and

6.9.2006 or the date mentioned in the order of regularization of other petitioners – all in the year 2006 treating them to be ad hoc employees, coupled with the direction issued by the Court in the case of Berojgar Junior Engineers Association and Writ Petition No.2605 S/S) of 1991 Yogesh Srivastava versus State of U.P. an others and writ Petition No.1400 of 1991 Virendra Kumar Sonkar versus State of U.P. and others, it was incumbent on the respondents to have complied with those directions at the earliest. As stated above, the regularization of the petitioners has been done in the year 2006. They are entitled to the benefit of 2001 Amended Regularization Rules. Regularization orders of the petitioners are not disputed. Status of ad hoc employees given to the petitioners is also not disputed. Judgment in Raj Bahadur Pastor’s case has been upheld by Supreme Court while dismissing the special Leave Petition. Review petition as well as the curative petition too have been dismissed. The judgment rendered in Special Appeal No.21 of 2022 State of U.P. Versus Raj Bahadur Pastor has been followed 15 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 by the Division Bench of this Court and while deciding special No.56 of 2022, in para 32, the date of regularization order dated

6.9.2006 has been amended in terms of order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and direction has been issued to treat the case of the appellants to have been regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001.

18.Needless to say, the judgment rendered in Special appeal No.56 of 2022 (supra) is binding on this Court, more so in view of the fact that the special leave petition (C) Diary No.25700 of 2024 filed against judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 passed in the said Special appeal No.56 of 2022 and other connected special appeals has been dismissed affirming the judgment and order dated 3.4.2024(supra). The respondents are bound by the decision passed by this court dated 27.1.2022 and 3.4.2024 passed in special appeals and they are also entitled to be regularized in service w.e.f. 20.12.2001 as the appellants of the above referred special appeals have been regularised giving the benefit of Third Amendment Rules of 2001. The State cannot discriminate with the present petitioners and is bound to extend the benefit to all similarly situated employees, including the petitioners.

19. In Lt. Col Suprita Chandel versus Union of India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664, it has been held by Supreme Court that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. In another case Union of India versus Munshi Ram (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1493, it has been held that the State cannot treat similarly situated employees differently. Denial of similar benefits to similarly situated employees would amount to violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Financial burden is not a ground to 16 WRIT A NO. 8821 OF 2024 deny benefit (paras 29, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 60 emphasised).

20.In light of the discussion made above, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 3.4.2024 passed in Special Appeal No.56 of 2022 and other connected matters and order dated 28.4.2022 (supra) is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondents to amend the date of regularization of the petitioners with retrospective effect and treat the petitioners to have been regularised w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in accordance with Rule 2(iii) of U.P. (post within the purview of Public Service commission) Adhoc Appointment Regularization Rules, 1979 as amended (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 and grant them all consequential benefits. September 9, 2025 kkb/ (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J)