High Court · 2025

the State/ respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 06.11.2020, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected.

3. Perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that there was a break in service of the petitioners. The same has been elaborated by Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4, by contending that as the petitioners were not having continuous service since their appointment, which was made prior to 31.12.2001 i.e., they were not having continuous service upto the date of promulgation of the Rules, i.e., 12.09.2016, and even thereafter, as such, they have not been found eligible for being regularized and their claim has been rejected.

4. The aforesaid ground taken by the respondents is found to be patently misconceived for the reason that Rule 6(1) of the U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work-Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on 'Group-C' and 'Group-D' Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2016") categorically provides that any person who was engaged on or before 31.12.2001 and is continuing in service on the date of promulgation of the Rules, i.e., 12.09.2016, would be entitled to be regularized.

5. The said Rule does not indicate anywhere that continuous service from the date of engagement till the date of promulgation of the Rules is required, which is the sole reason that has prevailed upon the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization.

6. This aspect of the matter had already been considered by this Court in Munnu Lal vs State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2018 (SS) decided on 16.07.2021, wherein this Court has held as under: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, what comes out from perusal of the impugned order dated 22.03.2018 is that the case of the petitioner for regularization under 2016 Rules has been rejected solely on the ground that in terms of 2016 Rules the petitioner was not in continuous employment since 31.12.2001 to 12.09.2016. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not employed prior to 31.12.2001 or was not in engagement on 12.09.2016 i.e. the date of promulgation of 2016 Rules. So far as the engagement of the petitioner prior to 31.12.2001 is concerned, the respondents themselves in the earlier order dated 25.06.2009 have admitted that the petitioner was engaged in June 1988 till February 1992 and thereafter from July 1999 to September 1999 and was also engaged subsequent thereto. Thus, the engagement prior to 31.12.2001 is admitted by the respondents. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was not in engagement as on 12.09.2016. Rule 6(1) of 2016 Rules for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "6. (1) Any person who- (i) was 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' or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) on or before December 31, 2001 and is still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of the commencement of these rules; possessed (ii) requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages or on work charge or on contract, under the relevant service rules and, subject to the provisions of above mentioned rules 2 and 5, shall be considered for regular appointment on Group 'C' or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of the commencement of these rules, 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." Thus, it is apparent that 2016 Rules are applicable on those persons who are engaged prior to 31.12.2001 and are still in engagement or employed on the date of commencement of 2016 Rules i.e. 12.09.2016 and also possess requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment. Certain other conditions are also mentioned therein. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the respondents have not indicated that the petitioner is not qualified for being regularized on the said post rather the only ground of rejection is that he was not in engagement continuously from 31.12.2001 to 12.09.2016. As already indicated above, Rule 6(1) of 2016 Rules does not contain any such stipulation of being in continuous engagement for a particular period. Thus, it is apparent that the case of the petitioner for regularization has wrongly been rejected by the respondents. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 22.03.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with 2016 Rules within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

7. From perusal of judgement of this Court in the case of Munnu Lal (supra) it emerge that this Court after considering Rule 6 of the Rules 2016 has held that Rules 2016 are applicable on those persons who are engaged prior to 31.12.2021 and are still engaged or employed on the date of commencement of 2016 Rules, i.e. on

12.09.2016. The respondents however have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not been in continuous engagement for the period 2001 till the date of promulgation of Rules

8. As already indicated above, Rules 2016 more particularly Rule 6 of the Rules, 2016 does not indicate anywhere of there being continuous service to be rendered by employee concerned rather the only stipulation is that a person should be in employment on the date of promulgation of Rules, i.e. 12.09.2016 and should have been engaged on or before 31.12.2001.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated

06.11.2020, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularization under the Rules, 2016 keeping in view the discussion made above.

10. Let such consideration be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [Abdul Moin, J.] Order Date :- 11.7.2025 cks/- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the State/ respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 06.11.2020, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected.

3. Perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that there was a break in service of the petitioners. The same has been elaborated by Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4, by contending that as the petitioners were not having continuous service since their appointment, which was made prior to 31.12.2001 i.e., they were not having continuous service upto the date of promulgation of the Rules, i.e., 12.09.2016, and even thereafter, as such, they have not been found eligible for being regularized and their claim has been rejected.

4. The aforesaid ground taken by the respondents is found to be patently misconceived for the reason that Rule 6(1) of the U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work-Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on 'Group-C' and 'Group-D' Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2016") categorically provides that any person who was engaged on or before 31.12.2001 and is continuing in service on the date of promulgation of the Rules, i.e., 12.09.2016, would be entitled to be regularized.

5. The said Rule does not indicate anywhere that continuous service from the date of engagement till the date of promulgation of the Rules is required, which is the sole reason that has prevailed upon the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization.

6. This aspect of the matter had already been considered by this Court in Munnu Lal vs State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2018 (SS) decided on 16.07.2021, wherein this Court has held as under: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, what comes out from perusal of the impugned order dated 22.03.2018 is that the case of the petitioner for regularization under 2016 Rules has been rejected solely on the ground that in terms of 2016 Rules the petitioner was not in continuous employment since 31.12.2001 to 12.09.2016. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not employed prior to 31.12.2001 or was not in engagement on 12.09.2016 i.e. the date of promulgation of 2016 Rules. So far as the engagement of the petitioner prior to 31.12.2001 is concerned, the respondents themselves in the earlier order dated 25.06.2009 have admitted that the petitioner was engaged in June 1988 till February 1992 and thereafter from July 1999 to September 1999 and was also engaged subsequent thereto. Thus, the engagement prior to 31.12.2001 is admitted by the respondents. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was not in engagement as on 12.09.2016. Rule 6(1) of 2016 Rules for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "6. (1) Any person who- (i) was 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' or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) on or before December 31, 2001 and is still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of the commencement of these rules; possessed (ii) requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages or on work charge or on contract, under the relevant service rules and, subject to the provisions of above mentioned rules 2 and 5, shall be considered for regular appointment on Group 'C' or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of the commencement of these rules, 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." Thus, it is apparent that 2016 Rules are applicable on those persons who are engaged prior to 31.12.2001 and are still in engagement or employed on the date of commencement of 2016 Rules i.e. 12.09.2016 and also possess requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment. Certain other conditions are also mentioned therein. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the respondents have not indicated that the petitioner is not qualified for being regularized on the said post rather the only ground of rejection is that he was not in engagement continuously from 31.12.2001 to 12.09.2016. As already indicated above, Rule 6(1) of 2016 Rules does not contain any such stipulation of being in continuous engagement for a particular period. Thus, it is apparent that the case of the petitioner for regularization has wrongly been rejected by the respondents. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 22.03.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with 2016 Rules within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

7. From perusal of judgement of this Court in the case of Munnu Lal (supra) it emerge that this Court after considering Rule 6 of the Rules 2016 has held that Rules 2016 are applicable on those persons who are engaged prior to 31.12.2021 and are still engaged or employed on the date of commencement of 2016 Rules, i.e. on

12.09.2016. The respondents however have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not been in continuous engagement for the period 2001 till the date of promulgation of Rules

8. As already indicated above, Rules 2016 more particularly Rule 6 of the Rules, 2016 does not indicate anywhere of there being continuous service to be rendered by employee concerned rather the only stipulation is that a person should be in employment on the date of promulgation of Rules, i.e. 12.09.2016 and should have been engaged on or before 31.12.2001.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated

06.11.2020, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularization under the Rules, 2016 keeping in view the discussion made above.

10. Let such consideration be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [Abdul Moin, J.] Order Date :- 11.7.2025 cks/- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench