Jai Ballabh Bhatt & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.

Heard Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents.

2. The petitioners were appointed on daily rated basis in the Forest Department in the year 1975 and 1983, respectively. The petitioners seek for regularization of their services. In fact the matter relating to daily rated employees working in the Forest Department in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the present State of Uttarakhand, stands concluded by decision of the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court. Many of these daily rated employees seeking regularization of their services, as they were working for a long period, approached the Hon(cid:146)ble High Court of Judicature of Allahabad, in which the Hon(cid:146)ble High Court passed the order in favour of the petitioners for regularization. Thereafter, the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the same before the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court and it was finally decided by the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in State of U.P. & others Vs Putti Lal reported in 2002 (1) E.L.C. 524 (SC). In the said judgment the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court issued certain directions to the State Government to regularize all the daily rated employees, by framing Rules. After the judgment of the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court, the State of Uttarakhand has framed Recruitment Rules of 2003 known 2 as (cid:147)Regularisation (On Group (cid:147)D(cid:148) Posts) of Daily Wages Appointment Rules, 2003(cid:148). The criteria for regularization has been mentioned in Rule 4(1), which reads as under:- (cid:147)4. Regulation of daily wages appointments on Group (cid:147)D(cid:148) posts: (1) Any person who:- (a) was directly appointed on daily wages basis on a Group (cid:147)D(cid:148) post in the Forest Department under Government service before June 29, 1991 and in continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and (b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in the Forest Department in Group (cid:147)D(cid:148) post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his regular record and suitability before any appointment is made accordance with the relevant service rules or orders.(cid:148) in such vacancy

3. Petitioner No. 1 has filed a writ petition (No. 512 of 2003), which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2003. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:- (cid:147)In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the respondents are directed to consider the regularization of the petitioner in accordance with Regularisation (On Group (cid:147)D(cid:148) posts) of Daily Wages Appointment Rules, 2003, within a period of six weeks after receipt of the certified copy of the order. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order-dated 16.9.2003 passed by respondent no. 2 so far it relates to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.(cid:148)

4. Subsequently, petitioner No. 2 filed another petition before this Court and on the basis of the above judgment, the learned Single Judge decided the case of Nain Ram (petitioner No. 2) in view of the decision of Jai 3 Ballabh, the relevant portion of the said judgment read as under:- (cid:147)The learned counsel for the parties agreed that on facts and law the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this court in writ petition (Lodge No. 512/2003) Jail Ballabh Vs State of Uttaranchal and others dated 10.12.2003, Annexure (cid:150) 6 and the petition is decided in terms of the said judgment.(cid:148)

5. Subsequently, the matter was considered by the State Authorities and the claim of the petitioners were rejected vide orders dated 09.01.2004 and 31.03.2004 on the ground that petitioner No. 1 was absent in the year 1999 i.e. w.e.f. April 1999 to November 1999 and petitioner No. 2 has not worked more then 240 days in the years 1994, 1997, 1998 and 1999. All the same, it is not the case of the respondents that these petitioners have not worked continuously.

6. This Court is of the clear view that the daily rated employees working in the Forest Department had filed a writ petition before the Hon(cid:146)ble High Court of Allahabad, which was allowed in favour of the petitioners and thereafter the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court passed the order in favour of the petitioners and consequently, the Rules were framed for their benefit. Rule 4 of the said Rules clearly stipulates that regularization of a person, who was directly appointed on a daily wages basis, on a Group (cid:147)D(cid:148) post in the Forest Department under Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service. This provision has been applied in case of the present petitioners in an extremely hyper technical manner by the respondents as they have considered (cid:147)continuous in service(cid:148) whereas the words in Rules are (cid:147)continuing in Service(cid:148). Considering the view of the fact that the continuation of service of the petitioners i.e. petitioner No. 1 had been working since 4 1975 and petitioner No. 2 had been working since 1983 has not been denied by the respondents. Moreover, the learned Single Judge of this Court in earlier round of litigations had allowed the writ petition. The writ petition though was allowed holding that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected purely on the technical grounds.

7. Consequently this Court is of the view that services of the petitioners are liable to be regularized, as provided under the Regularisation (On Group (cid:147)D(cid:148) Posts) of Daily Wages Appointment Rules, 2003 from the date of which their junior services have been regularized treating them in continuance of service. The respondent (cid:150) Secretary (Forest), Uttarakhand Government, Dehardun is hereby issue a mandamus to comply the order of this Court within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.

9. No order as to costs.

10.09.2012 Aswal (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)