State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Devp. And Ors. vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

: Tushar Bahadur, Vijay Kumar Srivastava : C.S.C. Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of rejection dated 26-09-2017 by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services,. has been rejected. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially engaged in District Rural Development Agency(hereafter referred to as 'DRDA'), on the post of Driver, on daily wage basis on 01-01-1995, and thereafter, he was kept on working continuously on the fixed pay and subsequently, on minimum of the pay-scale. He submitted that the government of Uttar Pradesh promulgated the government order dated 24-02-2016, by virtue of which, it was provided that those employees working on the daily wages, muster roll and temporary basis, prior to 31-12-2001, be considered for regularization of the services. He next submitted that the issue with respect to the 'DRDA', being the pervasive control of the State Government, has already been dealt with by this court in the case of Km. Kalyani Mehrotra Vs State of U.P. and Others, reported in [2021(39) LCD 1416]. He further added that after the government order, the certain informations were sought, wherein the department has given the information vide letter dated 16-08-2016 and three queries, which were made, were replied. 2 WRIA No. 13720 of 2018 He has drawn attention of this court towards paragraph 3 of the aforesaid letter and submitted that it is apparent from the point no. 1 of the information that the present petitioner is continuously working in the department since 01-01-1995 and thereafter since 11-12-2000, while getting the regular pay scale. He further submitted that the ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for regularization is erroneous as the same goes against the settled proposition of law, in the case of Km.Kalyani Mehrotra(Supra). He further argued that the other employees of the 'DRDA', who were attached to the office of Commissioner Rural Development namely, Ram Khelawan, Vinay Kumar, Bhupesh Singh and Samarjeet have been regularized on the post of Driver and the petitioner is being deprived of the same, though his case is also on the identical footings. He further submitted that the coordinate Bench of this court while dealing with the ditto identical controversy, has passed the Judgment and Order dated 22-09-2025 in the case of Jiya Lal and Another Vs The State of U.P. and 3 Others (Writ A No. 6766 of 2025) and issued a writ of mandamus commanding the concerned authorities to pass appropriate orders regarding regularization of those petitioners, invoking the provisions 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(hereafter referred to as 'Rules,2016'), which is applicable w.e.f. 12-09-2016. He added that the petitioner is also claiming the same relief as was sought by the identically situated employees but it has not been declined by the counsel for the opposite parties, in the Counter Affidavit. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned may be quashed and the authorities concerned may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner. On the other hand, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the Rules, 2016, applicable w.e.f. 12-09-2016, shall not be available to the present petitioner, as he is an employee of the 'DRDA', which does not come under the purview of the state. He further added that the 'DRDA' is an autonomous body and therefore, the provisions of Rules, 2016 will not apply to the employees of the 3 WRIA No. 13720 of 2018 'DRDA'. He next added that the rules, which as per the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, are impediment, have not been challenged by the present petitioner and even, the same has not been considered in Writ A No. 6766 of 2025. He also submitted that considering the government order dated 24-02-2016, read with Rules, subsequently promulgated, the authority has rightly taken the decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services, on the post of Driver, in the department of 'DRDA'. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it is an admitted fact in between the parties that the petitioner was appointed on 01-01-1995 on the post of Driver in 'DRDA', and he kept on working, since then, continuously, as is evident from the letter dated 16-08-2016, which was sent by the Project Director to the Commissioner, Rural Development, as in clause 3, it is mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on 01-01- 1995, on daily-wage basis and his payment is made from the head, as is established thereof, in the department of the 'DRDA'. This court has noticed that the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a government order, on 24-02-2016, while providing employees appointed the autonomous bodies, public enterprises/corporations/local bodies, development authorities and district Panchayats on daily wages, workcharge and contract basis, would be considered for regularization, who are working since 31-12- 2001. The issue with respect to 'DRDA' being the 'State' has been dealt with, by Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Km. Kalyani Mehrotra (Supra) and therefore, there is no dispute on this issue that the 'DRDA' is not a state body. It is further noticed that services of three other employees of the 'DRDA', who were working on the same post i.e. 'Driver' have been regularized, though the slight difference, which is shown, is that, the present petitioner after his appointment, was working with 'DRDA', whereas, those four other employees were attached with the office of the Commissioner, Rural Development and therefore, there seems to be no difference in between the nature of the appointment or the nature of the institution, wherein initially the petitioner as well as the other identically situated persons were appointed. Moreso, it is also 4 WRIA No. 13720 of 2018 apparent that the present petitioner including those drivers, whose services have been regularized, were getting salary from the administrative head of the 'DRDA'. This court has failed to understand that how the authorities are making distinction in between the present petitioner as well as those four other petitioners(Drivers), whose services have been regularized, particularly with respect to the fact that they were also working on the post of Driver, in the 'DRDA' after their initial appointment. This court has also noticed the Judgment and Order passed by the coordinate Bench of this court in Writ A No. 6766 of 2025, Jiya Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others(Supra), wherein the identical issue has been dealt with and the order rejecting the claim of those petitioners for regularization of their services, passed by the authorities, has been quashed and direction has been given to consider for regularization, in the light of Rules,2016. In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions, this court finds that the order impugned dated 26-09-2017 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Resultantly, the same is hereby quashed. The opposite party no. 3/Chief Development Officer/Executive Director, District Rural Development Agency, Lucknow is hereby directed to consider the regularization of the services of the petitioner in terms of Rules, 2016, which is effective w.e.f. 12-09-2016, keeping in view the regularization of the identically situated employees namely Ram Khelawan, Bhupesh Singh, Vinay Kumar and Samarjeet. The decision will be taken by the opposite party no. 3 within period of eight weeks from the date of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. November 27, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

: Tushar Bahadur, Vijay Kumar Srivastava : C.S.C. Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of rejection dated 26-09-2017 by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services,. has been rejected. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially engaged in District Rural Development Agency(hereafter referred to as 'DRDA'), on the post of Driver, on daily wage basis on 01-01-1995, and thereafter, he was kept on working continuously on the fixed pay and subsequently, on minimum of the pay-scale. He submitted that the government of Uttar Pradesh promulgated the government order dated 24-02-2016, by virtue of which, it was provided that those employees working on the daily wages, muster roll and temporary basis, prior to 31-12-2001, be considered for regularization of the services. He next submitted that the issue with respect to the 'DRDA', being the pervasive control of the State Government, has already been dealt with by this court in the case of Km. Kalyani Mehrotra Vs State of U.P. and Others, reported in [2021(39) LCD 1416]. He further added that after the government order, the certain informations were sought, wherein the department has given the information vide letter dated 16-08-2016 and three queries, which were made, were replied. 2 WRIA No. 13720 of 2018 He has drawn attention of this court towards paragraph 3 of the aforesaid letter and submitted that it is apparent from the point no. 1 of the information that the present petitioner is continuously working in the department since 01-01-1995 and thereafter since 11-12-2000, while getting the regular pay scale. He further submitted that the ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for regularization is erroneous as the same goes against the settled proposition of law, in the case of Km.Kalyani Mehrotra(Supra). He further argued that the other employees of the 'DRDA', who were attached to the office of Commissioner Rural Development namely, Ram Khelawan, Vinay Kumar, Bhupesh Singh and Samarjeet have been regularized on the post of Driver and the petitioner is being deprived of the same, though his case is also on the identical footings. He further submitted that the coordinate Bench of this court while dealing with the ditto identical controversy, has passed the Judgment and Order dated 22-09-2025 in the case of Jiya Lal and Another Vs The State of U.P. and 3 Others (Writ A No. 6766 of 2025) and issued a writ of mandamus commanding the concerned authorities to pass appropriate orders regarding regularization of those petitioners, invoking the provisions 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(hereafter referred to as 'Rules,2016'), which is applicable w.e.f. 12-09-2016. He added that the petitioner is also claiming the same relief as was sought by the identically situated employees but it has not been declined by the counsel for the opposite parties, in the Counter Affidavit. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned may be quashed and the authorities concerned may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner. On the other hand, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the Rules, 2016, applicable w.e.f. 12-09-2016, shall not be available to the present petitioner, as he is an employee of the 'DRDA', which does not come under the purview of the state. He further added that the 'DRDA' is an autonomous body and therefore, the provisions of Rules, 2016 will not apply to the employees of the 3 WRIA No. 13720 of 2018 'DRDA'. He next added that the rules, which as per the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, are impediment, have not been challenged by the present petitioner and even, the same has not been considered in Writ A No. 6766 of 2025. He also submitted that considering the government order dated 24-02-2016, read with Rules, subsequently promulgated, the authority has rightly taken the decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services, on the post of Driver, in the department of 'DRDA'. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it is an admitted fact in between the parties that the petitioner was appointed on 01-01-1995 on the post of Driver in 'DRDA', and he kept on working, since then, continuously, as is evident from the letter dated 16-08-2016, which was sent by the Project Director to the Commissioner, Rural Development, as in clause 3, it is mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on 01-01- 1995, on daily-wage basis and his payment is made from the head, as is established thereof, in the department of the 'DRDA'. This court has noticed that the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a government order, on 24-02-2016, while providing employees appointed the autonomous bodies, public enterprises/corporations/local bodies, development authorities and district Panchayats on daily wages, workcharge and contract basis, would be considered for regularization, who are working since 31-12- 2001. The issue with respect to 'DRDA' being the 'State' has been dealt with, by Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Km. Kalyani Mehrotra (Supra) and therefore, there is no dispute on this issue that the 'DRDA' is not a state body. It is further noticed that services of three other employees of the 'DRDA', who were working on the same post i.e. 'Driver' have been regularized, though the slight difference, which is shown, is that, the present petitioner after his appointment, was working with 'DRDA', whereas, those four other employees were attached with the office of the Commissioner, Rural Development and therefore, there seems to be no difference in between the nature of the appointment or the nature of the institution, wherein initially the petitioner as well as the other identically situated persons were appointed. Moreso, it is also 4 WRIA No. 13720 of 2018 apparent that the present petitioner including those drivers, whose services have been regularized, were getting salary from the administrative head of the 'DRDA'. This court has failed to understand that how the authorities are making distinction in between the present petitioner as well as those four other petitioners(Drivers), whose services have been regularized, particularly with respect to the fact that they were also working on the post of Driver, in the 'DRDA' after their initial appointment. This court has also noticed the Judgment and Order passed by the coordinate Bench of this court in Writ A No. 6766 of 2025, Jiya Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others(Supra), wherein the identical issue has been dealt with and the order rejecting the claim of those petitioners for regularization of their services, passed by the authorities, has been quashed and direction has been given to consider for regularization, in the light of Rules,2016. In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions, this court finds that the order impugned dated 26-09-2017 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Resultantly, the same is hereby quashed. The opposite party no. 3/Chief Development Officer/Executive Director, District Rural Development Agency, Lucknow is hereby directed to consider the regularization of the services of the petitioner in terms of Rules, 2016, which is effective w.e.f. 12-09-2016, keeping in view the regularization of the identically situated employees namely Ram Khelawan, Bhupesh Singh, Vinay Kumar and Samarjeet. The decision will be taken by the opposite party no. 3 within period of eight weeks from the date of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. November 27, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench