Shailendra Kumar Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others) by holding thus

Heard Sri Krishna Datta Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6. The impugned order in this writ petition dated 25.07.2023 was set aside by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 13630 of 2023 (Shailendra Kumar Singh and another Vs State of U.P. and others) by holding thus: "26. This Court must say without mincing words that the respondents in this case have shown an obdurate attitude, driving the petitioners to seek judicial redress, when plainly it is not called for. The repeat rejection of the petitioners' representation on different grounds shows uncalled for defiance to judicial orders. This is neither welcome not acceptable. If there is lack of understanding on the concerned respondents' part about principles of law applicable to subtle subjects, like regularization, the respondents are no less than the State Government and who have at their command the service of their Law Department. We reiterate that the Rules of 2016 hardly leave much to be done by the respondents and this Court would wish that now the respondents would consider the petitioners' case for regularization strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2016 and within the confines of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.10908 of 2021.

27. For the reasons indicated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued, ordering the Principal Secretary to pass fresh orders within a month of receipt of a copy of this judgment, bearing in mind the guidance here." The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the learned Division Bench by holding as under:- "15. The engagement of the petitioners as daily wagers on or before the cut off date i.e. 31.12.2001, and their continuance in service as such until the date of enforcement of Rules of 2016, are facts which are undisputed and which stand conclusively determined in terms of the judgments in the earlier round of litigations between the parties.

16. The stand taken by the State authorities to deny the petitioners the benefit of regularization, runs contrary to the very object for which the Rules of 2016 were notified, i.e. for regularizing those persons who had been engaged in the specified establishments on or before certain cut off dates and who had been continued for fairly long period of time.

17. The right to be considered for regularization under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2016 provides that the eligibility for consideration would cover persons who are directly engaged or employed or deployed or working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in a government department on group-C and D posts, falling outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission subject to condition that their engagement had been made on or before December 31, 2001 and they were in engagement or employment or deployment or working as such on the date of commencement of the Rules of 2016. The other requirement for regularization, which is to be examined possession of requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for the posts at the time the persons concerned were engaged or employed or deployed on daily wage basis.

18. We may notice that while disposing of the earlier writ petition, being Writ- A No.10908 of 2021, the Court had recorded a finding that the petitioners had been engaged prior to the cut off date and that they were working on the date of issuance of the notification i.e. 12.09.2016, in terms of which the Rules of 2016 had been notified, and as such their claims for regularization were required to be considered as per the provisions under the said rules.

19. The aforesaid findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation in Writ-A No.10908 of 2021 are undisputed and are inter partes.

20. In view of the aforesaid, the claims of the petitioners for regularization was to be considered by the concerned State-authorities in accordance with the requirements as set out under the Rules of 2016 and the question with regard to the initial appointments of the petitioners, cannot be said to be a relevant consideration for the same. The observations made, in this regard in the earlier round of litigation between the parties, being Writ-A No.10908 of 2021, are reproduced herein below:- "The stand taken by the respondents for justifying their action is absolutely in teeth of the rules and virtually frustrates the very object for which the rule itself has been notified. The object of notifying regularisation rules is to grant permanency to those employees in specified establishement who have continued for very long. The cut off date specified in the rules are 31.12.2001 and 12.09.2006 and, therefore, one who becomes entitled to regularised must have worked for this entire period except period of artificial break in service. The right of regularisation once is recognized the rules further contemplate that non availability of posts in such circumstances would not be a ground to deny consideration for regularisation. In order to deal with such exigency Rule 5 provides for creation of supernumerary posts. It is admitted to respondents by way of instructions that such request had been made by the Nagar Panchayat to the State Government. Whether or not petitioners were appointed against any post created by Nagar Panchayat looses significance inasmuch as in the event it is found that their engagement was not against any post, duly sanctioned by the State, their claim for regularisation will have to be considered as per the Rules of 2016. Once petitioners fulfill necessary ingredients inasmuch as they were engaged prior to cut off date and were working on the date of issuance of the notification i.e. 12.09.2016, their claim shall be dealt with as per law..."

21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, we find that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.13630 of 2023, is based on due consideration of the material on record, and has been passed after recording cogent reasons.

22. We do not find any reason to take a different view.

23. The special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed." The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 711 of 2024 (State of U.P. and 4 others Vs Shailendra Kumar Singh and 9 others). The impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The writ petitioner is entitled for regularization in accordance with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and learned Division Bench. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Pravin PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Sri Krishna Datta Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6. The impugned order in this writ petition dated 25.07.2023 was set aside by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 13630 of 2023 (Shailendra Kumar Singh and another Vs State of U.P. and others) by holding thus: "26. This Court must say without mincing words that the respondents in this case have shown an obdurate attitude, driving the petitioners to seek judicial redress, when plainly it is not called for. The repeat rejection of the petitioners' representation on different grounds shows uncalled for defiance to judicial orders. This is neither welcome not acceptable. If there is lack of understanding on the concerned respondents' part about principles of law applicable to subtle subjects, like regularization, the respondents are no less than the State Government and who have at their command the service of their Law Department. We reiterate that the Rules of 2016 hardly leave much to be done by the respondents and this Court would wish that now the respondents would consider the petitioners' case for regularization strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2016 and within the confines of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.10908 of 2021.

27. For the reasons indicated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued, ordering the Principal Secretary to pass fresh orders within a month of receipt of a copy of this judgment, bearing in mind the guidance here." The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the learned Division Bench by holding as under:- "15. The engagement of the petitioners as daily wagers on or before the cut off date i.e. 31.12.2001, and their continuance in service as such until the date of enforcement of Rules of 2016, are facts which are undisputed and which stand conclusively determined in terms of the judgments in the earlier round of litigations between the parties.

16. The stand taken by the State authorities to deny the petitioners the benefit of regularization, runs contrary to the very object for which the Rules of 2016 were notified, i.e. for regularizing those persons who had been engaged in the specified establishments on or before certain cut off dates and who had been continued for fairly long period of time.

17. The right to be considered for regularization under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2016 provides that the eligibility for consideration would cover persons who are directly engaged or employed or deployed or working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in a government department on group-C and D posts, falling outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission subject to condition that their engagement had been made on or before December 31, 2001 and they were in engagement or employment or deployment or working as such on the date of commencement of the Rules of 2016. The other requirement for regularization, which is to be examined possession of requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for the posts at the time the persons concerned were engaged or employed or deployed on daily wage basis.

18. We may notice that while disposing of the earlier writ petition, being Writ- A No.10908 of 2021, the Court had recorded a finding that the petitioners had been engaged prior to the cut off date and that they were working on the date of issuance of the notification i.e. 12.09.2016, in terms of which the Rules of 2016 had been notified, and as such their claims for regularization were required to be considered as per the provisions under the said rules.

19. The aforesaid findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation in Writ-A No.10908 of 2021 are undisputed and are inter partes.

20. In view of the aforesaid, the claims of the petitioners for regularization was to be considered by the concerned State-authorities in accordance with the requirements as set out under the Rules of 2016 and the question with regard to the initial appointments of the petitioners, cannot be said to be a relevant consideration for the same. The observations made, in this regard in the earlier round of litigation between the parties, being Writ-A No.10908 of 2021, are reproduced herein below:- "The stand taken by the respondents for justifying their action is absolutely in teeth of the rules and virtually frustrates the very object for which the rule itself has been notified. The object of notifying regularisation rules is to grant permanency to those employees in specified establishement who have continued for very long. The cut off date specified in the rules are 31.12.2001 and 12.09.2006 and, therefore, one who becomes entitled to regularised must have worked for this entire period except period of artificial break in service. The right of regularisation once is recognized the rules further contemplate that non availability of posts in such circumstances would not be a ground to deny consideration for regularisation. In order to deal with such exigency Rule 5 provides for creation of supernumerary posts. It is admitted to respondents by way of instructions that such request had been made by the Nagar Panchayat to the State Government. Whether or not petitioners were appointed against any post created by Nagar Panchayat looses significance inasmuch as in the event it is found that their engagement was not against any post, duly sanctioned by the State, their claim for regularisation will have to be considered as per the Rules of 2016. Once petitioners fulfill necessary ingredients inasmuch as they were engaged prior to cut off date and were working on the date of issuance of the notification i.e. 12.09.2016, their claim shall be dealt with as per law..."

21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, we find that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.13630 of 2023, is based on due consideration of the material on record, and has been passed after recording cogent reasons.

22. We do not find any reason to take a different view.

23. The special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed." The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 711 of 2024 (State of U.P. and 4 others Vs Shailendra Kumar Singh and 9 others). The impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The writ petitioner is entitled for regularization in accordance with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and learned Division Bench. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Pravin PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad