Bharat Pratap Tomar And 8 Others v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others

having perused the record, in the first place, it requires to be examined if the petitioners claims' were barred by the Rules. Here, the petitioners are on a strong footing inasmuch as the Rules referred to in the impugned order and as have been relied upon by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are plainly inapplicable to the present facts. It is so because, as noted above, undisputedly, the petitioners are engaged directly by the University. It is an autonomous body. The Rules being referred to are clearly applicable only to Group C post and Group D posts in government departments. That is plain both from a reading of the description of the Rules as also Rule 2(2) of the Rules. It reads as below: "2. यह न(cid:5)यम(cid:7)वल(cid:10) न(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:5)ललल(cid:13)त क(cid:16) नवन(cid:5)यनमत(cid:10)करण क(cid:16) ललए ल(cid:7)ग(cid:21) (cid:5)ह(cid:22) ह(cid:23)ग(cid:10): (द(cid:23)) उद(cid:7)(cid:5) नवभ(cid:7)ग, ककन(cid:29) नवभ(cid:7)ग, ककन(cid:29) न(cid:30)क(cid:7) नवभ(cid:7)ग और ऐस(cid:16) सम#प नवभ(cid:7)ग% मम म’सम(cid:10) क(cid:7)यरर क(cid:16) ललय(cid:16) लग(cid:16) हहए / न(cid:5)य(cid:23)ल+त / पररन(cid:5)य(cid:23)ल+त -यनक/-यनकय%:"

8. Then, more substantially, Rule 6(1) of the Rules read as below: "6.(1) नकस(cid:10) -यनक क(cid:23) - (एक) +(cid:23) नकस(cid:10) सरक(cid:7)र(cid:10) नवभ(cid:7)ग मम 31 नदस(cid:11)बर, 2001 क(cid:23) य(cid:7) उसस(cid:16) प(cid:21)वर सम(cid:21)ह ग य(cid:7) सम(cid:21)ह 'घ' क(cid:16) पद (उ2र 3द(cid:16)(cid:30) ल(cid:23)क स(cid:16)व(cid:7) आय(cid:23)ग क(cid:16) क(cid:16)5 क(cid:16) ब(cid:7)हर) पर द6न(cid:5)क व(cid:16)त(cid:5)/म+द(cid:21)र(cid:10) य(cid:7) क(cid:7)यर 3भ(cid:7)र य(cid:7) सरनवद(cid:7) पर स(cid:10)ध(cid:16) लग(cid:7) हहआ य(cid:7) न(cid:5)य(cid:23)ल+त य(cid:7) अनभन(cid:5)य(cid:23)ल+त य(cid:7) क(cid:7)यर कर रह(cid:7) ह(cid:23) और इस न(cid:5)यम(cid:7)वल(cid:10) क(cid:16) 3(cid:7)र(cid:11)भ क(cid:16) नद(cid:5)(cid:7)रक क(cid:23) उस #प मम लग(cid:7) हहआ य(cid:7) न(cid:5)य(cid:23)ल+त य(cid:7) अनभन(cid:5)य(cid:23)ल+त य(cid:7) क(cid:7)यर कर रह(cid:7) ह(cid:23): और (द(cid:23)) +(cid:23) स:सरगत स(cid:16)व(cid:7) न(cid:5)यम(cid:7)वल(cid:10) और उपररललल(cid:13)त न(cid:5)यम 2 और 5 क(cid:16) उपब;ध% क(cid:16) अ<यध(cid:10)(cid:5) द6न(cid:5)क म+द(cid:21)र(cid:10) य(cid:7) क(cid:7)यर 3भ(cid:7)र य(cid:7) सरनवद(cid:7) पर ऐस(cid:16) नवन(cid:5)य(cid:23)+(cid:5) य(cid:7) न(cid:5)य(cid:23)+(cid:5) य(cid:7) अनभन(cid:5)य(cid:23)+(cid:5) क(cid:16) समय उस पद पर न(cid:5)यनमत न(cid:5)य:नक क(cid:16) ललए नवनहत अप(cid:16)नकत अहरत(cid:7)एर र(cid:13)त(cid:7) ह(cid:23): सम(cid:21)ह 'ग' य(cid:7) सम(cid:21)ह घ क(cid:16) पद (उ2र 3द(cid:16)(cid:30) ल(cid:23)क स(cid:16)व(cid:7) आय(cid:23)ग क(cid:16) क(cid:16)5 क(cid:16) ब(cid:7)हर) पर =थ(cid:7)य(cid:10) य(cid:7) अ=थ(cid:7)य(cid:10) ररनक मम +(cid:23) इस न(cid:5)यम(cid:7)वल(cid:10) क(cid:16) 3(cid:7)र(cid:11)भ क(cid:16) नद(cid:5)(cid:7)रक क(cid:23) उपल?ध ह(cid:23), न(cid:5)यनमत न(cid:5)य:नक क(cid:16) ललए ऐस(cid:10) ररनक मम स:सरगत स(cid:16)व(cid:7) न(cid:5)यम(cid:7)वल(cid:10) य(cid:7) आद(cid:16)(cid:30)% क(cid:16) अ(cid:5):स(cid:7)र क(cid:23)ई न(cid:5)यनमत न(cid:5)य:नक कर(cid:5)(cid:16) क(cid:16) प(cid:21)वर उसक(cid:16) अनभल(cid:16)(cid:13) और उपय:कत(cid:7) क(cid:16) आध(cid:7)र पर नवच(cid:7)र इमर(cid:10) क(cid:7) म(cid:7)=टर नकय(cid:7) +(cid:7)य(cid:16)ग(cid:7)।"

9. Thus, the eligibility to regularization under the Rules would arise only to a person who may have been working in a government department from 31.12.2001 or before. The Rules are plainly not applicable to any person not working in a government department. Undisputedly, the respondent University is not a government department. Therefore, neither the petitioners claimed any right under that Rule nor they could be found ineligible to regularization under those Rules. The Rules are plainly inapplicable to them.

10. As to what law governs the claim for regularization claimed by the petitioners is therefore to be considered in the context of the Government Order dated 18.06.2015. Perusal of that document reveals, it contains a policy decision to regularize persons such as the petitioners. That policy decision had been made by a Committee constituted for that purpose. Though it contains a proposal that may be read as a decision to regularize the persons such as the petitioners on the posts of Computer Operator (Grade-B), however, the ultimate direction contained in that Government Order is in the last two lines thereof. It reads as below: " आपस(cid:16) अ(cid:5):र(cid:23)ध ह6 नक कक पय(cid:7) उपय: कक सहमनत स(cid:16) न(cid:5)गरत कर(cid:5)(cid:16) क(cid:7) कष करम।" रक ललय(cid:16) गय(cid:16) न(cid:5)णरय क(cid:16) क(cid:7)य(cid:7)र;वय(cid:5) ह(cid:16)त: आवशयक आद(cid:16)(cid:30) नव2 नवभ(cid:7)ग

11. Therefore, it can never be successfully contended by the petitioners that the government decision had been made to regularize the petitioners on the post of Computer Operator (Grade-B). Truly, a resolution had been offered at the level of the specially constituted Committee to regularize the petitioners. However, as to the actual regularization, the concerned department i.e. the Agricultural Department was directed to obtain prior sanction from the Finance Department and then enforce the decision/resolution of the Committee, accordingly. Therefore, a vital step remained to be taken at the governmental level in the shape of approval to the Department of Agriculture by the Department of Finance as may have given a right to the petitioners to be considered for regularization in terms of the Government Order dated 18.06.2015, remained to be taken.

12. In administrative law, various layers of decision making exist before rights may crystalize. The government was not bound to consider the claim for regularization in the light of the first layer of the decision made. That decision was to be implemented only after approval from the Finance Department. In its absence, the action at the governmental/administrative level remained incomplete. Therefore, the stage was premature for the State to consider the claim of the petitioners.

13. At this stage, it may be noted, the petitioner nos. 1 to 7 have worked for almost 20 years where petitioner nos. 8 and 9 have worked for about 15 years. It may also be noted, they were appointed on sanctioned posts and they are being paid salary in terms of the pay-scale applicable to the posts, over a long period of time of more than 8 years.

14. Too much time has passed and the fact situation has also been altered in the meanwhile as commends to the Court to make an observation that the claim of the petitioners deserve serious consideration keeping in mind the observations made above. In short, the petitioners claim is not to be rejected because of incomplete action at the governmental level on account of failure on part of the relevant governmental authority to follow up the Government Order dated 18.5.2016. A person who is in the status of the employee may never in a position to push the government or to persuade it to complete action that fell in realm of administrative decision making by the government.

15. Passage of time, in the facts of the present case does require the government to consider the claim of the petitioner sympathetically as petitioners are not to blame to having rendered almost their entire length of service on such representations that came to be made by the government agencies and the University.

16. In view of the above, impugned order dated 18.9.2020 is quashed.

17. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with a direction upon respondent no.1 to take up the matter in the right spirit and issue necessary directions in respect to claim of regularization being made by the petitioner such that final decision may be made with respect to claim of the petitioners within a period of six months from today, and no later. Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Prakhar SRIVASTAVA Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad