Smt. Sumirta v. Smt. Renu Singh & another) (originally titled as Bhupal Singh Vs. Smt

2. Heard Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.D. Shahi, who appears on behalf of the respondents along with Shri Umesh Pratap Singh, Advocate.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that one Bhupal Singh, the husband of the respondent no.1 and the father of the respondent no.2 was engaged on daily wages to work as driver in 1981 and he continued to work till 1994. 2 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 He absented on his own w.e.f. January, 1995 and thereafter he preferred Writ Petition No.2447 (SS) of 1995 praying for a direction to the respondents to regularize him on the post of driver in accordance with Government Order issued from time to time and to pay him salary w.e.f. February, 1995. In such writ petition by an order dated 27.07.1995, this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation. A detailed order was passed on 08.12.1995 by which the petitioner's case was considered but it was stated that there can not be any regularization as there was a ban on appointment of driver. As per records available in the department, Bhupal Singh, the predecessor in interest of the respondent has not worked in the department from January, 1995 till the year 2000, but he came back on work in 2001. The writ petition No.2447 (SS) of 1995 remained pending in which an order was passed on 26.05.2003 directing the reports to give the petitioner, Bhupal Singh minimum of pay scale admissible to a driver.

4. Bhupal Singh, again made a representation for regularization in 2012 and then filed Writ Petition No.1693 (SS) of 2012 praying for direction to the respondents to consider him for regularization. The said writ petition was disposed off on 10.04.2012 with a direction to respondents to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order. In compliance of the order dated 10.04.2012, the case of Bhupal Singh was considered for regularization. He was not found eligible and his claim was rejected on 06.07.2012.

5. Against the order dated 06.07.2012, Bhupal Singh preferred Claim Petition No.899 of 2013. During pendency of the claim petition, the Writ Petition No.2447 (SS) of 1995 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 3 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022

30.07.2015. An application for recall was filed which was disposed of by this Court on 25.11.2019 with the observation that dismissal of writ petition will not have any adverse effect on the order passed by the Tribunal on 08.11.2019. During pendency of the recall application, the Tribunal had already allowed the claim petition No.899 of 2019 by its order dated 08.11.2019. The Tribunal had directed the authority to consider the case of the regularization of Bhupal Singh treating him to be in continuous service as daily wager since 1995.

6. It has been submitted by Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel that on the date of the order dated 08.11.2019 passed in Claim Petition No.899 of 2013, 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 the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016, has become operative. Such regularization Rules of 2016 had to be taken into account. Moreover, the U.P. Government Department Drivers Service Rules, 1993 were also operating and they should also be taken into account.

7. By letter dated 11.12.2019, the case of Bhupal Singh was placed before the Chief Conservator of Forest, Lucknow who was the appointing authority. In order to ensure compliance of the Tribunal's order

08.11.2019, the appointing authority constituted a four member committee to ascertain the factual position and to place its report before the appointing authority for further action. Such committee submitted its report on 04/06/2020 after examining the work and qualification, etc., of Bhupal Singh. It reported Bhupal Singh to be eligible to be considered for regularization as per Rules. 4 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022

8. After receiving such report, the appointing authority constituted a selection committee to consider suitability for regularization as per Rule 17 of the 1993 Rules. A meeting of the selection committee was scheduled on 16.09.2020 and 17.09.2020. It could not consider the case as certified copy of the order of the Tribunal was not before it. A meeting was again scheduled on 15/10/2020. Such meeting could not be held and it was rescheduled for 21/12/2020. Bhupal Singh was asked to appear before the selection committee along with requisite documents, including medical fitness certificates etc.

9. The meeting of the selection committee was held on 21/10/2020, but Bhupal Singh could not appear and sent a request for adjournment due to illness. The meeting was rescheduled for 06.01.2021. On 06.01.2021, Bhupal Singh again could not appear because of illness. The meeting was rescheduled for 11.01.2021 but on that date also Bhupal Singh could not appear, as he was ill. The committee decided to get medical examination of Bhupal Singh done through the Chief Medical Officer. Bhupal Singh had not appeared before the committee so no driving test could be held. The medical report submitted by the CMO showed Bhupal Singh to be unfit to drive a vehicle. The medical report further recommended that Bhupal Singh be examined by a Neurologist. A request was sent to King George Medical University to examine Bhupal Singh.

10. Again, a meeting was held on 12.02.2021, but on that date, the committee was informed that Bhupal Singh had died on 22/01/2021.

11. While the process of consideration of Bhupal Singh for regularization was being undertaken, the respondents had filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of order passed by the Tribunal dated 5 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 08/11/2019. Compliance affidavit was filed in such contempt petition, which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

12. It has been submitted by Shri V.P. Nag that since there was only an order for consideration of regularization of Bhupal Singh by the Tribunal while deciding the Claim Petition No.899 of 2013, and the appointing authority had constituted a committee to consider the case of regularization, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal in the claim petition was not complied with. It has been submitted that the Tribunal while considering the contempt petition has gone far beyond it's jurisdiction for ensuring compliance of order passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 899 of 2013.

13. The respondents had complied with the order dated 08/11/2019 and had treated Bhupal Singh to be in continuous service, even for the period when he was absent from service, i.e. with effect from 1995 to the year

14. It has also been submitted that as per Rule 15 of the U.P. Government Department Drivers Service Rules, 1993, a person who is considered for appointment/appointment by regularization, should be a man of good health (mental and physical). It has been submitted that Bhupal Singh, in compliance of Rule 15, which applied in case of appointment by regularization also; had been asked to appear before the committee along with requisite medical fitness certificate. Bhupal Singh did not appear on 21/11/2020 because of illness. He continued to remain ill till he died on 22/01/2021. Such a person, who could have been regularized, had he been physically fit, could not be regularized because, admittedly, he was very 6 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 ill, as is evident from the CMO's report, who had recommended further examination of Bhupal Singh by a Neurologist at King George Medical University.

15. It has been submitted that while rejecting the compliance report in the contempt petition, the Tribunal in its order dated 05/01/2022 has gone far beyond what was required in the judgment and order dated 08/11/2019. Moreover, certain observations have been made regarding selection committee and regularization committee, which were completely uncalled for. At the most, the respondents could have challenged the order passed in compliance of the judgment dated 08/11/2019 in a fresh petition, either before this Court or before the Tribunal, which was not done. The Tribunal, sitting in contempt jurisdiction has exercised powers akin to writ jurisdiction and made certain observations regarding the merits of the case; which could not have been done.

16. Shri R.D. Shahi, who appears for the respondents, has stated that the judgment and order dated 08/11/2019 in Claim Petition No. 899 of 2013 was not challenged by the State and became final between the parties. Since Bhupal Singh in his claim petition, had prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondents to treat him as regularized and to quash the order dated 06/07/2012 finding him ineligible to be regularize, and the claim petition was allowed, and the order dated 06/07/2012 was set aside; the appointing authority should have regularized Bhupal Singh straight away, instead of constituting a selection committee to examine his papers. Even the selection committee, in its order dated 04/06/2020, had found the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Bhupal Singh, to be entitled for regularization on the basis of his educational qualification as 7 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 given in the Drivers Service Rules of 1993.

17. It has been submitted by Shri R.D. Shahi that this Court by its earlier order of 19.04.2024, had directed the State to produce the original records of the selection committee dated 04/06/2020.

18. Shri V.P. Nag has submitted that the original record relating to the consideration of Bhupal Singh for regularization is available. It was placed before this court by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

19. We have examined the order dated 26/12/2019 by the Appointing Authority at page 94, constituting a committee only to consider compliance of the order dated 08/11/2019 passed in Claim Petition No. 899 of 2013. There were four members to the said committee: the Forest Conservator, Ayodhya, the Divisional Forest Officer, Barabanki, The Divisional Forest Officer, Amethi and the Divisional Forest Officer, Sultanpur were its members. The Chief Conservator, Central Region, Lucknow, had directed the committee only to examine the papers of Bhupal Singh and to submit its report within one week for further action to be taken.

20. The four member committee, however, met for the first time only after six months of the order dated 26/11/2019, on 04/06/2020. It considered the Drivers Service Rules of 1993, and also the Regularization Rules of 1998 as amended from time to time. After considering the matter in detail and also the legal opinion given by the Standing Counsel for compliance of order date 08.11.2019 in the claim petition, the educational qualification of Bhupal Singh was considered, which was Junior High 8 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 School, as was prescribed under the Service Rules of 1993, and he was found to be eligible for regularization.

21. Even after such a recommendation was given on 04/06/2020, the Chief Conservator of Forest constituted another selection committee to consider the suitability for regularization of Bhupal Singh as per Rule 17 of the 1993 Rules.

22. We have already taken into account the several dates fixed for meeting of such committee, which kept on being postponed for on one ground or the other, sometimes because of unavailability of officers, and sometimes because Bhupal Singh himself requests for adjournment because of his illness. On 21/12/2020, the committee called for medical examination to be conducted of Bhupal Singh through CMO. On the next date fixed for meeting of the committee, Bhupal Singh could not appear because of his illness. Hence, driving test could not be held. The medical report was submitted by the CMO, finding the employee to be medically unfit to drive a vehicle, and recommending further examination of Bhupal Singh by a Neurologist at King George Medical University. Before Bhupal Singh could appear before the neurologist at King George Medical University, he died on 22/01/2021.

23. Such proceedings taken in purported compliance of judgment and order dated 08/11/2019, were placed by means of a compliance affidavit before the learned Tribunal in the contempt petition, as aforesaid. The Tribunal rejected such compliance report and asked the petitioners to submit a fresh compliance report, against which order this petition has been filed on the ground that certain observations have been made by the Tribunal in the contempt petition, which are beyond its jurisdiction for 9 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 ensuring execution of order of the Tribunal and the contempt court cannot go beyond the orders of which there is an alleged willful non-compliance.

24. Having considered the arguments raised and also having gone through the records, including the order impugned in this petition, we find that the learned Tribunal has treated the order dated 08/11/2019 to have directed regularization without considering the Service Rules of 1993, and the Regularization Rules of 1998. Certain observations have been made in paragraph-4 of the impugned order, which apparently go beyond the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered that Bhupal Singh has been driving the vehicle since 01.03.1991 at least till December, 1994. There may have been a break in service from 1994 to 2000, but such break was condoned by the High Court, as the High Court has passed an order on 24.05.2003 directing the department to give minimum of pay scale to Bhupal Singh. Taking into account continuity in service, this direction for regularization had been given in Claim Petition No. 899 of 2013 by the Tribunal.

25. The Tribunal has made certain observations in the impugned order regarding Drivers Rules 1993 being not applicable. However, after examining Rule 17 of 1993 Rules, we find that jurisdiction has been given on the appointing authority to consider suitability of a candidate for appointment by regularization and the directions in the claim petition was only for consideration of Bhupal Singh for regularization as per service rules.

26. We do not find it a case whether this court should interfere in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022

27. The writ petition stands dismissed.

28. Since we have dismissed the petition, a fresh compliance report be filed by the appointing authority before the Tribunal in the pending contempt petition. (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 26, 2025 KR RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.D. Shahi, who appears on behalf of the respondents along with Shri Umesh Pratap Singh, Advocate.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that one Bhupal Singh, the husband of the respondent no.1 and the father of the respondent no.2 was engaged on daily wages to work as driver in 1981 and he continued to work till 1994. 2 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 He absented on his own w.e.f. January, 1995 and thereafter he preferred Writ Petition No.2447 (SS) of 1995 praying for a direction to the respondents to regularize him on the post of driver in accordance with Government Order issued from time to time and to pay him salary w.e.f. February, 1995. In such writ petition by an order dated 27.07.1995, this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation. A detailed order was passed on 08.12.1995 by which the petitioner's case was considered but it was stated that there can not be any regularization as there was a ban on appointment of driver. As per records available in the department, Bhupal Singh, the predecessor in interest of the respondent has not worked in the department from January, 1995 till the year 2000, but he came back on work in 2001. The writ petition No.2447 (SS) of 1995 remained pending in which an order was passed on 26.05.2003 directing the reports to give the petitioner, Bhupal Singh minimum of pay scale admissible to a driver.

4. Bhupal Singh, again made a representation for regularization in 2012 and then filed Writ Petition No.1693 (SS) of 2012 praying for direction to the respondents to consider him for regularization. The said writ petition was disposed off on 10.04.2012 with a direction to respondents to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order. In compliance of the order dated 10.04.2012, the case of Bhupal Singh was considered for regularization. He was not found eligible and his claim was rejected on 06.07.2012.

5. Against the order dated 06.07.2012, Bhupal Singh preferred Claim Petition No.899 of 2013. During pendency of the claim petition, the Writ Petition No.2447 (SS) of 1995 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 3 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022

30.07.2015. An application for recall was filed which was disposed of by this Court on 25.11.2019 with the observation that dismissal of writ petition will not have any adverse effect on the order passed by the Tribunal on 08.11.2019. During pendency of the recall application, the Tribunal had already allowed the claim petition No.899 of 2019 by its order dated 08.11.2019. The Tribunal had directed the authority to consider the case of the regularization of Bhupal Singh treating him to be in continuous service as daily wager since 1995.

6. It has been submitted by Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel that on the date of the order dated 08.11.2019 passed in Claim Petition No.899 of 2013, 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 the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016, has become operative. Such regularization Rules of 2016 had to be taken into account. Moreover, the U.P. Government Department Drivers Service Rules, 1993 were also operating and they should also be taken into account.

7. By letter dated 11.12.2019, the case of Bhupal Singh was placed before the Chief Conservator of Forest, Lucknow who was the appointing authority. In order to ensure compliance of the Tribunal's order

08.11.2019, the appointing authority constituted a four member committee to ascertain the factual position and to place its report before the appointing authority for further action. Such committee submitted its report on 04/06/2020 after examining the work and qualification, etc., of Bhupal Singh. It reported Bhupal Singh to be eligible to be considered for regularization as per Rules. 4 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022

8. After receiving such report, the appointing authority constituted a selection committee to consider suitability for regularization as per Rule 17 of the 1993 Rules. A meeting of the selection committee was scheduled on 16.09.2020 and 17.09.2020. It could not consider the case as certified copy of the order of the Tribunal was not before it. A meeting was again scheduled on 15/10/2020. Such meeting could not be held and it was rescheduled for 21/12/2020. Bhupal Singh was asked to appear before the selection committee along with requisite documents, including medical fitness certificates etc.

9. The meeting of the selection committee was held on 21/10/2020, but Bhupal Singh could not appear and sent a request for adjournment due to illness. The meeting was rescheduled for 06.01.2021. On 06.01.2021, Bhupal Singh again could not appear because of illness. The meeting was rescheduled for 11.01.2021 but on that date also Bhupal Singh could not appear, as he was ill. The committee decided to get medical examination of Bhupal Singh done through the Chief Medical Officer. Bhupal Singh had not appeared before the committee so no driving test could be held. The medical report submitted by the CMO showed Bhupal Singh to be unfit to drive a vehicle. The medical report further recommended that Bhupal Singh be examined by a Neurologist. A request was sent to King George Medical University to examine Bhupal Singh.

10. Again, a meeting was held on 12.02.2021, but on that date, the committee was informed that Bhupal Singh had died on 22/01/2021.

11. While the process of consideration of Bhupal Singh for regularization was being undertaken, the respondents had filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of order passed by the Tribunal dated 5 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 08/11/2019. Compliance affidavit was filed in such contempt petition, which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

12. It has been submitted by Shri V.P. Nag that since there was only an order for consideration of regularization of Bhupal Singh by the Tribunal while deciding the Claim Petition No.899 of 2013, and the appointing authority had constituted a committee to consider the case of regularization, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal in the claim petition was not complied with. It has been submitted that the Tribunal while considering the contempt petition has gone far beyond it's jurisdiction for ensuring compliance of order passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 899 of 2013.

13. The respondents had complied with the order dated 08/11/2019 and had treated Bhupal Singh to be in continuous service, even for the period when he was absent from service, i.e. with effect from 1995 to the year

14. It has also been submitted that as per Rule 15 of the U.P. Government Department Drivers Service Rules, 1993, a person who is considered for appointment/appointment by regularization, should be a man of good health (mental and physical). It has been submitted that Bhupal Singh, in compliance of Rule 15, which applied in case of appointment by regularization also; had been asked to appear before the committee along with requisite medical fitness certificate. Bhupal Singh did not appear on 21/11/2020 because of illness. He continued to remain ill till he died on 22/01/2021. Such a person, who could have been regularized, had he been physically fit, could not be regularized because, admittedly, he was very 6 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 ill, as is evident from the CMO's report, who had recommended further examination of Bhupal Singh by a Neurologist at King George Medical University.

15. It has been submitted that while rejecting the compliance report in the contempt petition, the Tribunal in its order dated 05/01/2022 has gone far beyond what was required in the judgment and order dated 08/11/2019. Moreover, certain observations have been made regarding selection committee and regularization committee, which were completely uncalled for. At the most, the respondents could have challenged the order passed in compliance of the judgment dated 08/11/2019 in a fresh petition, either before this Court or before the Tribunal, which was not done. The Tribunal, sitting in contempt jurisdiction has exercised powers akin to writ jurisdiction and made certain observations regarding the merits of the case; which could not have been done.

16. Shri R.D. Shahi, who appears for the respondents, has stated that the judgment and order dated 08/11/2019 in Claim Petition No. 899 of 2013 was not challenged by the State and became final between the parties. Since Bhupal Singh in his claim petition, had prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondents to treat him as regularized and to quash the order dated 06/07/2012 finding him ineligible to be regularize, and the claim petition was allowed, and the order dated 06/07/2012 was set aside; the appointing authority should have regularized Bhupal Singh straight away, instead of constituting a selection committee to examine his papers. Even the selection committee, in its order dated 04/06/2020, had found the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Bhupal Singh, to be entitled for regularization on the basis of his educational qualification as 7 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 given in the Drivers Service Rules of 1993.

17. It has been submitted by Shri R.D. Shahi that this Court by its earlier order of 19.04.2024, had directed the State to produce the original records of the selection committee dated 04/06/2020.

18. Shri V.P. Nag has submitted that the original record relating to the consideration of Bhupal Singh for regularization is available. It was placed before this court by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

19. We have examined the order dated 26/12/2019 by the Appointing Authority at page 94, constituting a committee only to consider compliance of the order dated 08/11/2019 passed in Claim Petition No. 899 of 2013. There were four members to the said committee: the Forest Conservator, Ayodhya, the Divisional Forest Officer, Barabanki, The Divisional Forest Officer, Amethi and the Divisional Forest Officer, Sultanpur were its members. The Chief Conservator, Central Region, Lucknow, had directed the committee only to examine the papers of Bhupal Singh and to submit its report within one week for further action to be taken.

20. The four member committee, however, met for the first time only after six months of the order dated 26/11/2019, on 04/06/2020. It considered the Drivers Service Rules of 1993, and also the Regularization Rules of 1998 as amended from time to time. After considering the matter in detail and also the legal opinion given by the Standing Counsel for compliance of order date 08.11.2019 in the claim petition, the educational qualification of Bhupal Singh was considered, which was Junior High 8 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 School, as was prescribed under the Service Rules of 1993, and he was found to be eligible for regularization.

21. Even after such a recommendation was given on 04/06/2020, the Chief Conservator of Forest constituted another selection committee to consider the suitability for regularization of Bhupal Singh as per Rule 17 of the 1993 Rules.

22. We have already taken into account the several dates fixed for meeting of such committee, which kept on being postponed for on one ground or the other, sometimes because of unavailability of officers, and sometimes because Bhupal Singh himself requests for adjournment because of his illness. On 21/12/2020, the committee called for medical examination to be conducted of Bhupal Singh through CMO. On the next date fixed for meeting of the committee, Bhupal Singh could not appear because of his illness. Hence, driving test could not be held. The medical report was submitted by the CMO, finding the employee to be medically unfit to drive a vehicle, and recommending further examination of Bhupal Singh by a Neurologist at King George Medical University. Before Bhupal Singh could appear before the neurologist at King George Medical University, he died on 22/01/2021.

23. Such proceedings taken in purported compliance of judgment and order dated 08/11/2019, were placed by means of a compliance affidavit before the learned Tribunal in the contempt petition, as aforesaid. The Tribunal rejected such compliance report and asked the petitioners to submit a fresh compliance report, against which order this petition has been filed on the ground that certain observations have been made by the Tribunal in the contempt petition, which are beyond its jurisdiction for 9 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022 ensuring execution of order of the Tribunal and the contempt court cannot go beyond the orders of which there is an alleged willful non-compliance.

24. Having considered the arguments raised and also having gone through the records, including the order impugned in this petition, we find that the learned Tribunal has treated the order dated 08/11/2019 to have directed regularization without considering the Service Rules of 1993, and the Regularization Rules of 1998. Certain observations have been made in paragraph-4 of the impugned order, which apparently go beyond the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered that Bhupal Singh has been driving the vehicle since 01.03.1991 at least till December, 1994. There may have been a break in service from 1994 to 2000, but such break was condoned by the High Court, as the High Court has passed an order on 24.05.2003 directing the department to give minimum of pay scale to Bhupal Singh. Taking into account continuity in service, this direction for regularization had been given in Claim Petition No. 899 of 2013 by the Tribunal.

25. The Tribunal has made certain observations in the impugned order regarding Drivers Rules 1993 being not applicable. However, after examining Rule 17 of 1993 Rules, we find that jurisdiction has been given on the appointing authority to consider suitability of a candidate for appointment by regularization and the directions in the claim petition was only for consideration of Bhupal Singh for regularization as per service rules.

26. We do not find it a case whether this court should interfere in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10 WRIA No. 3345 of 2022

27. The writ petition stands dismissed.

28. Since we have dismissed the petition, a fresh compliance report be filed by the appointing authority before the Tribunal in the pending contempt petition. (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 26, 2025 KR RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench