High Court · 2025

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1995 on the post of Lekha Lipik (Accounts Clerk) on daily wages. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on consolidated salary on the same post vide office order dated 27.06.2001.

4. He submits that since the petitioner has been working continuously on the said post. The work and conduct of the petitioner has been excellent and to the best satisfaction of the authorities. It is next submitted that the petitioner is eligible for regularization on the Class-III post as per 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 U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2016’) and as per Government Orders issued from time to time.

5. He further submits that for the purpose of regularization, a seniority list of Class-III employees working on consolidated salary in the Directorate of Culture, U.P. and U.P. Sangrahalaya Nideshalaya and its subordinate units was prepared by the opposite party no. 2 in which the name of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 1. The seniority list is on record as Annexure-3 to the petition.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons junior to the petitioner namely, Ritesh Singh Chauhan and Chandra Prakash Sahu have been regularized by the opposite party no. 2 as per the Rules, 2016 vide office orders dated 06.11.2020 and 28.07.2021 (Annexure-4 and 5 to the petition). It is further submitted that one Manoj Saxena, who was also junior to the petitioner, has also been regularized vide office order dated 22.06.2017 which is also on record as Annexure-6 to the petition. Likewise, several other persons, who are similarly placed with the petitioner, have been regularized. Thus, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid Rules, 2016.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the aforesaid contentions on the basis of counter affidavit and has submitted that the petitioner lacks eligible qualification for the post of Accounts Clerk. However, from the counter affidavit which is also on record, he could not show that what is the eligibility qualification/ lacked by the petitioner. Thus, the counter affidavit is apparently vague.

8. Perused the record.

9. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, juniors to the petitioner namely, Ritesh Singh Chauhan and Chandra Prakash Sahu have been regularized and the same has not been denied while filing the counter affidavit by the State, rather has been admitted.

10. Rule 6 of the Rules, 2016 is extracted herein 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; (ii) possessed 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.”

11. It is not disputed by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was engaged on Muster Roll on the post of Lekha Lipik on 15.07.1995. The averment that the petitioner was engaged thereafter w.e.f. 27.06.2001, has also not been disputed. The fact that the juniors to the petitioner have been regularized, has also not been disputed in the counter affidavit.

12. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner was engaged before 31.12.2001 and is still working in the office of the opposite parties and also the admitted fact that the juniors to the petitioner have been regularized, the case of the petitioner is also liable to be considered for regularization in view of the aforesaid Rules, 2016.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

14. The opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization at par with the other similarly situated persons and also the juniors to the petitioner, who have been regularized on the post of Junior Assistant, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1995 on the post of Lekha Lipik (Accounts Clerk) on daily wages. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on consolidated salary on the same post vide office order dated 27.06.2001.

4. He submits that since the petitioner has been working continuously on the said post. The work and conduct of the petitioner has been excellent and to the best satisfaction of the authorities. It is next submitted that the petitioner is eligible for regularization on the Class-III post as per 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 U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2016’) and as per Government Orders issued from time to time.

5. He further submits that for the purpose of regularization, a seniority list of Class-III employees working on consolidated salary in the Directorate of Culture, U.P. and U.P. Sangrahalaya Nideshalaya and its subordinate units was prepared by the opposite party no. 2 in which the name of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 1. The seniority list is on record as Annexure-3 to the petition.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons junior to the petitioner namely, Ritesh Singh Chauhan and Chandra Prakash Sahu have been regularized by the opposite party no. 2 as per the Rules, 2016 vide office orders dated 06.11.2020 and 28.07.2021 (Annexure-4 and 5 to the petition). It is further submitted that one Manoj Saxena, who was also junior to the petitioner, has also been regularized vide office order dated 22.06.2017 which is also on record as Annexure-6 to the petition. Likewise, several other persons, who are similarly placed with the petitioner, have been regularized. Thus, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid Rules, 2016.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the aforesaid contentions on the basis of counter affidavit and has submitted that the petitioner lacks eligible qualification for the post of Accounts Clerk. However, from the counter affidavit which is also on record, he could not show that what is the eligibility qualification/ lacked by the petitioner. Thus, the counter affidavit is apparently vague.

8. Perused the record.

9. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, juniors to the petitioner namely, Ritesh Singh Chauhan and Chandra Prakash Sahu have been regularized and the same has not been denied while filing the counter affidavit by the State, rather has been admitted.

10. Rule 6 of the Rules, 2016 is extracted herein 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; (ii) possessed 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.”

11. It is not disputed by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was engaged on Muster Roll on the post of Lekha Lipik on 15.07.1995. The averment that the petitioner was engaged thereafter w.e.f. 27.06.2001, has also not been disputed. The fact that the juniors to the petitioner have been regularized, has also not been disputed in the counter affidavit.

12. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner was engaged before 31.12.2001 and is still working in the office of the opposite parties and also the admitted fact that the juniors to the petitioner have been regularized, the case of the petitioner is also liable to be considered for regularization in view of the aforesaid Rules, 2016.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

14. The opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization at par with the other similarly situated persons and also the juniors to the petitioner, who have been regularized on the post of Junior Assistant, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench