Allahabad High Court · 2025

"I. Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the opposite party No.1, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. II. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the opposite party no.1, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, and to allow the petitioners to continue to discharge their duties with full back wages/salary, and to continue to pay salary to the petitioners. III. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith regularise the services of the petitioners and accord them all consequential benefits including grant of regular scale of pay, payment of arrears of salary according to the scale as applicable to them from time to time, and grant of seniority taking into consideration the entire duration of service of the petitioner. IV. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the opposite parties to pay heavy cost to the Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.2 of 15 petitioners for subjecting them to unwarranted harassment and mental anguish." (7) The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.1, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners and to accord them all consequential benefits including regular scale of pay, payment of arrears, etc. (8) By means of the order dated 17.01.2018, the petitioners have been informed that their retrenchment order dated 31.01.2007 is being given effect to with immediate effect. (9) The order impugned has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2018 and the said stay order is still continuing till date. (10) Bereft of any unnecessary details, the facts set forth by learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners were appointed as Salesmen under the respondent No.1 on daily wages with effect from 12.09.1985 and 24.09.1984 respectively. They continued in service without any break. (11) After that petitioners had continued for a sufficient period of time, yet they are not regularized, they were constrained to file Writ Petition No.2486 (S/S) of 2000 in Re: Raj Kumar Divedi vs. U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Limited and others praying for the regularization. (12) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners were also the petitioners in the said petition. Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.3 of 15 (13) The said petition was decided vide the judgment and order dated 18.04.2006, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition, with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, taking into consideration the long period of working. (14) Instead of regularizing the petitioners, an undated order was passed by the respondents, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, whereby the petitioners were not found eligible for being regularized. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006 challenging the undated order by which the regularization had been rejected and praying for their regularization. (15) This Court in Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006, by means of order dated 06.11.2006, as reproduced in paragraph 21 of the petition, directed that till further orders, the respondents shall not proceed to retrench the petitioners from service. (16) During the pendency of the petition, the respondents issued an order dated 31.01.2007, whereby the services of the petitioners and the others were retrenched. (17) However, in pursuance to the interim order dated 06.11.2006, admittedly, the petitioners were continued in service and were never retrenched. (18) The Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006 was decided vide judgment and order dated 11.04.2017 as corrected on

22.08.2017, copies of which have been filed as Annexures-2 and 3 to the petition. Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.4 of 15 (19) The corrected order dated 22.08.2017 recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is covered by the Regularization Rules, 1985 as amended by the Rules, 1990. His submission that the entire duration for which the petitioners worked be also considered was also recorded. This Court indicated that it goes without saying that the duration for which the petitioners worked has to be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioners for regularization. Respondent No.2 was directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, taking into consideration the observations made by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2017. (20) In pursuance thereof, the case of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected vide impugned order dated 16/17.01.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, on the ground that the retrenchment order is being given effect, i.e., with effect from the date of issuance of the order dated 16/17.01.2018. (21) Raising a challenge to the said order and praying for regularization, the instant petition has been filed. (22) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners have already retired from service in the year 2022 itself and petitioner No.2 has also died during pendency of the instant petition and his legal heirs have been substituted. (23) The contention is that the petitioners have rendered long period of service since the year 1984-85 till their retirement wherein they continued to work continuously. The Regularization Rules have been issued, namely, the Uttar Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.5 of 15 Pradesh Regularization of Services of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract Basis on Posts Within the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board in Co-operative Societies Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 2017") which in Clause 4 categorically provides for regularization of any person who was directly engaged or employed or deployed for working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract basis in a Co-operative Society under the purview of the Board on or before 31.12.2001 and still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of commencement of the Regulations, which commenced on 04.12.2017. It is contended that the case of the petitioners for regularization stood crystallized on the date of promulgation of the said Regulations, 2017 i.e. 04.12.2017 and consequently, the respondents are patently in error while passing the impugned order in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization and also in contending that the retrenchment order is to come into force with immediate effect. (24) The further contention is that once the petitioners had been continued in service for a period of about 38 years, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have not considered them for regularization, rather rejected their claim for regularization and to have indicated in the impugned order that the retrenchment order dated 31.01.2007 is being implemented with effect from 16/17.01.2018. (25) On the other hand, Shri Amit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, has justified the impugned Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.6 of 15 order by contending that the petitioners, along with several others, had been retrenched vide the order dated 31.01.2007 on account of the precarious financial position of respondent No.1. However, in terms of the order of the writ Court dated

06.11.2006, whereby the petitioners were directed to continue until further orders, both the petitioners were continued in service. It is only when the writ petition was decided vide the order dated 11.04.2017 and the Court directed for consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization that considering the earlier retrenchment order dated

31.01.2007, the said order was directed to be implemented with effect from 16/17.01.2018 as indicated in the said order. Thus, once the petitioners are retrenched employees, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for regularization in terms of Regulations, 2017. Shri Chandra states that the respondent No.1 is in a precarious financial situation and it is not possible to regularize the petitioners. (26) Shri Prashast Puri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, has stated that in terms of the Regulations, 2017, repeated reminders have been sent to respondent No.1 for sending of the Managing Director of the society/respondent No.1, who is the Member/Secretary of the Selection Committee for the purpose of consideration by the Selection Committee in terms of Clause 5 of the Regulations, 2017, for the purpose of consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization, but the respondent No.1 has failed to send the Managing Director of the society. In this regard, Shri Puri has placed reliance on various letters that have been sent by the Commission, including the letter dated 25.03.2025. Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.7 of 15 (27) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. (28) From the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the contesting parties and perusal of record, it emerges that the petitioners were appointed as Salesmen under respondent No.1 on daily wages with effect from 12.09.1985 and 24.09.1984 respectively and retired in the year 2022 and, as such, till their retirement in the year 2022 had rendered almost 37 to 38 years of continuous service. As they had not been regularized, they filed a writ in the year 2000 praying for the regularization, which was decided in April, 2006 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization. However, their case for regularization was rejected. (29) Perusal of the rejection order, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, would indicate that the respondents have not disputed that other persons who were working on daily wages had been regularized. However, respondent No.1 has indicated that it has no power to regularize the petitioners, as the said power lies with the Sansthagat Sewa Mandal, i.e., respondent No.2. (30) Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners again filed Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006, praying for quashing of the order of rejection of regularization and further praying for their regularization. During pendency of the writ petition, by means of order dated 31.01.2007, the services of the petitioners and others were retrenched. This Court, vide order dated 06.11.2006, had earlier directed that, till further orders, the respondents shall not proceed to retrench the petitioners Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.8 of 15 from service. As such, considering the interim order dated

06.11.2006, the petitioners were continued in service. Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006 was decided vide the judgment and order dated 11.04.2017 as corrected on 22.08.2017, whereby the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded that the case of the petitioners is covered by the Regularization Rules, 1985 as amended by the Rules, 1990. The writ Court indicated that the duration for which the petitioners worked has to be taken into consideration while considering their case for regularization and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization considering the observations made in the order dated 22.08.2017. (31) The case of the petitioners for regularization was rejected vide the order impugned dated 17.01.2018 on the ground that the retrenchment order dated 31.01.2007 is to come into force with immediate effect, i.e., with the date of issuance of the order dated 17.01.2018. (32) Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the instant petition in which this Court passed an interim order dated 01.02.2018 directing that the operation and enforcement of the order dated

17.01.2018 shall remain stayed. The petitioners thus again continued in service. The order continued to remain in operation and ultimately, the petitioners retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2022. (33) From perusal of the aforesaid facts, it thus emerges that the petitioners have been in continuous service since their initial appointment, i.e., 12.09.1985 and 24.09.1984 respectively and Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.9 of 15 have also retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2022 having rendered almost 37 to 38 years of continuous service. The claim of regularization was earlier rejected. The petitioners were also retrenched and the retrenchment order was also sought to be made effective vide the order dated

17.01.2018. However, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioners have rendered uninterrupted service of 37 to 38 years and thus it is apparent that the petitioners have spent their entire working period under respondent No.1 but the benefit of regularization has not been extended to them. (34) The only ground taken by Shri Amit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, to justify the non- regularization and the retrenchment of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 is in a precarious financial position and, once the petitioners are retrenched employees, consequently there cannot be any occasion for their regularization. (35) Whether the aforesaid ground(s) for non-regularization of the petitioners would be available to respondent No.1 would have to be seen by this Court. (36) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, had an occasion to consider a matter where there were no regularization rules, yet the persons concerned had continued to work for a long period of time and the State had benefited from their services. (37) In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.10 of 15 “1. When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity of work. …..

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.11 of 15 course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. …..

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ” (38) Perusal of the said judgment of Dharam Singh (supra) indicates that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive directions as, case after case, orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been met with fresh technicalities which prolong the insecurity of those who have Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.12 of 15 already laboured for years on daily wages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that such circumstances demand the imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines and verifiable compliance and that as a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and, therefore, it must organize its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow the said obligations would not be a mere negligence but rather is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for the workers. (39) In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, without there being any regularization scheme, issued directions for the regularization of the said persons who had worked for decades from the date the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. (40) The instant case stands on a better footing, inasmuch as the petitioners have worked from the year 1984-85 till the year 2022, i.e., having rendered almost 37 to 38 years of continuous service and having spent their entire working life working under the respondents. The respondent No.1 has been benefited from their service. Despite having been retrenched in the year 2007, the writ Court, vide the order dated 22.08.2017, directed that the duration for which the petitioners had worked was to be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioners for regularization. The respondents, in the earlier rejection order, have admittedly regularized the services of the persons who were working under the respondent No.1 Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.13 of 15 and by means of the impugned order, it has been indicated that the petitioners had been retrenched in the year 2007. (41) Nothing would be more adverse to the petitioners than the aforesaid grounds which have been taken by the respondents for their non-regularization, including the ground of respondent No.1 being in a precarious financial position. Merely because the respondent No.1 is in a precarious financial position, the rights which have accrued to the petitioners cannot be negated and the continuous working of 37 to 38 years cannot be written off on the whims, fancies and caprices of the respondent No.1. Even otherwise, the earlier direction of the writ Court dated 18.04.2006, directing the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners for regularization, as well as the subsequent order of the writ Court dated

22.08.2017, have attained finality; rather, the respondents have acquiesced to the said orders. (42) In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Court finds that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise the extraordinary powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (43) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued, quashing the impugned order dated 17.01.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as regularized with effect from the date of the orders of the writ Court dated 18.04.2006. The respondents shall also pay the retiral dues, including pension, gratuity and other benefits, to Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.14 of 15 petitioner No.1 and the legal heirs of the petitioner No.2 with effect from the date of retirement. (44) It is made clear that the regularization order would only be for the purpose of their retiral benefits and the petitioners would not be entitled to any other benefits for the aforesaid period of service. (45) The respondents shall comply with this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Shubhankar [Abdul Moin, J.] Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.15 of 15 SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"I. Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the opposite party No.1, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. II. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the opposite party no.1, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, and to allow the petitioners to continue to discharge their duties with full back wages/salary, and to continue to pay salary to the petitioners. III. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith regularise the services of the petitioners and accord them all consequential benefits including grant of regular scale of pay, payment of arrears of salary according to the scale as applicable to them from time to time, and grant of seniority taking into consideration the entire duration of service of the petitioner. IV. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the opposite parties to pay heavy cost to the Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.2 of 15 petitioners for subjecting them to unwarranted harassment and mental anguish." (7) The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.1, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners and to accord them all consequential benefits including regular scale of pay, payment of arrears, etc. (8) By means of the order dated 17.01.2018, the petitioners have been informed that their retrenchment order dated 31.01.2007 is being given effect to with immediate effect. (9) The order impugned has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2018 and the said stay order is still continuing till date. (10) Bereft of any unnecessary details, the facts set forth by learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners were appointed as Salesmen under the respondent No.1 on daily wages with effect from 12.09.1985 and 24.09.1984 respectively. They continued in service without any break. (11) After that petitioners had continued for a sufficient period of time, yet they are not regularized, they were constrained to file Writ Petition No.2486 (S/S) of 2000 in Re: Raj Kumar Divedi vs. U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association Limited and others praying for the regularization. (12) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners were also the petitioners in the said petition. Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.3 of 15 (13) The said petition was decided vide the judgment and order dated 18.04.2006, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition, with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, taking into consideration the long period of working. (14) Instead of regularizing the petitioners, an undated order was passed by the respondents, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, whereby the petitioners were not found eligible for being regularized. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006 challenging the undated order by which the regularization had been rejected and praying for their regularization. (15) This Court in Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006, by means of order dated 06.11.2006, as reproduced in paragraph 21 of the petition, directed that till further orders, the respondents shall not proceed to retrench the petitioners from service. (16) During the pendency of the petition, the respondents issued an order dated 31.01.2007, whereby the services of the petitioners and the others were retrenched. (17) However, in pursuance to the interim order dated 06.11.2006, admittedly, the petitioners were continued in service and were never retrenched. (18) The Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006 was decided vide judgment and order dated 11.04.2017 as corrected on

22.08.2017, copies of which have been filed as Annexures-2 and 3 to the petition. Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.4 of 15 (19) The corrected order dated 22.08.2017 recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is covered by the Regularization Rules, 1985 as amended by the Rules, 1990. His submission that the entire duration for which the petitioners worked be also considered was also recorded. This Court indicated that it goes without saying that the duration for which the petitioners worked has to be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioners for regularization. Respondent No.2 was directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, taking into consideration the observations made by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2017. (20) In pursuance thereof, the case of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected vide impugned order dated 16/17.01.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, on the ground that the retrenchment order is being given effect, i.e., with effect from the date of issuance of the order dated 16/17.01.2018. (21) Raising a challenge to the said order and praying for regularization, the instant petition has been filed. (22) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners have already retired from service in the year 2022 itself and petitioner No.2 has also died during pendency of the instant petition and his legal heirs have been substituted. (23) The contention is that the petitioners have rendered long period of service since the year 1984-85 till their retirement wherein they continued to work continuously. The Regularization Rules have been issued, namely, the Uttar Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.5 of 15 Pradesh Regularization of Services of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract Basis on Posts Within the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board in Co-operative Societies Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 2017") which in Clause 4 categorically provides for regularization of any person who was directly engaged or employed or deployed for working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract basis in a Co-operative Society under the purview of the Board on or before 31.12.2001 and still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of commencement of the Regulations, which commenced on 04.12.2017. It is contended that the case of the petitioners for regularization stood crystallized on the date of promulgation of the said Regulations, 2017 i.e. 04.12.2017 and consequently, the respondents are patently in error while passing the impugned order in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization and also in contending that the retrenchment order is to come into force with immediate effect. (24) The further contention is that once the petitioners had been continued in service for a period of about 38 years, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have not considered them for regularization, rather rejected their claim for regularization and to have indicated in the impugned order that the retrenchment order dated 31.01.2007 is being implemented with effect from 16/17.01.2018. (25) On the other hand, Shri Amit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, has justified the impugned Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.6 of 15 order by contending that the petitioners, along with several others, had been retrenched vide the order dated 31.01.2007 on account of the precarious financial position of respondent No.1. However, in terms of the order of the writ Court dated

06.11.2006, whereby the petitioners were directed to continue until further orders, both the petitioners were continued in service. It is only when the writ petition was decided vide the order dated 11.04.2017 and the Court directed for consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization that considering the earlier retrenchment order dated

31.01.2007, the said order was directed to be implemented with effect from 16/17.01.2018 as indicated in the said order. Thus, once the petitioners are retrenched employees, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for regularization in terms of Regulations, 2017. Shri Chandra states that the respondent No.1 is in a precarious financial situation and it is not possible to regularize the petitioners. (26) Shri Prashast Puri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, has stated that in terms of the Regulations, 2017, repeated reminders have been sent to respondent No.1 for sending of the Managing Director of the society/respondent No.1, who is the Member/Secretary of the Selection Committee for the purpose of consideration by the Selection Committee in terms of Clause 5 of the Regulations, 2017, for the purpose of consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization, but the respondent No.1 has failed to send the Managing Director of the society. In this regard, Shri Puri has placed reliance on various letters that have been sent by the Commission, including the letter dated 25.03.2025. Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.7 of 15 (27) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. (28) From the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the contesting parties and perusal of record, it emerges that the petitioners were appointed as Salesmen under respondent No.1 on daily wages with effect from 12.09.1985 and 24.09.1984 respectively and retired in the year 2022 and, as such, till their retirement in the year 2022 had rendered almost 37 to 38 years of continuous service. As they had not been regularized, they filed a writ in the year 2000 praying for the regularization, which was decided in April, 2006 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization. However, their case for regularization was rejected. (29) Perusal of the rejection order, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, would indicate that the respondents have not disputed that other persons who were working on daily wages had been regularized. However, respondent No.1 has indicated that it has no power to regularize the petitioners, as the said power lies with the Sansthagat Sewa Mandal, i.e., respondent No.2. (30) Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners again filed Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006, praying for quashing of the order of rejection of regularization and further praying for their regularization. During pendency of the writ petition, by means of order dated 31.01.2007, the services of the petitioners and others were retrenched. This Court, vide order dated 06.11.2006, had earlier directed that, till further orders, the respondents shall not proceed to retrench the petitioners Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.8 of 15 from service. As such, considering the interim order dated

06.11.2006, the petitioners were continued in service. Writ Petition No.6377 (S/S) of 2006 was decided vide the judgment and order dated 11.04.2017 as corrected on 22.08.2017, whereby the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded that the case of the petitioners is covered by the Regularization Rules, 1985 as amended by the Rules, 1990. The writ Court indicated that the duration for which the petitioners worked has to be taken into consideration while considering their case for regularization and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization considering the observations made in the order dated 22.08.2017. (31) The case of the petitioners for regularization was rejected vide the order impugned dated 17.01.2018 on the ground that the retrenchment order dated 31.01.2007 is to come into force with immediate effect, i.e., with the date of issuance of the order dated 17.01.2018. (32) Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the instant petition in which this Court passed an interim order dated 01.02.2018 directing that the operation and enforcement of the order dated

17.01.2018 shall remain stayed. The petitioners thus again continued in service. The order continued to remain in operation and ultimately, the petitioners retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2022. (33) From perusal of the aforesaid facts, it thus emerges that the petitioners have been in continuous service since their initial appointment, i.e., 12.09.1985 and 24.09.1984 respectively and Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.9 of 15 have also retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2022 having rendered almost 37 to 38 years of continuous service. The claim of regularization was earlier rejected. The petitioners were also retrenched and the retrenchment order was also sought to be made effective vide the order dated

17.01.2018. However, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioners have rendered uninterrupted service of 37 to 38 years and thus it is apparent that the petitioners have spent their entire working period under respondent No.1 but the benefit of regularization has not been extended to them. (34) The only ground taken by Shri Amit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, to justify the non- regularization and the retrenchment of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 is in a precarious financial position and, once the petitioners are retrenched employees, consequently there cannot be any occasion for their regularization. (35) Whether the aforesaid ground(s) for non-regularization of the petitioners would be available to respondent No.1 would have to be seen by this Court. (36) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, had an occasion to consider a matter where there were no regularization rules, yet the persons concerned had continued to work for a long period of time and the State had benefited from their services. (37) In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.10 of 15 “1. When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity of work. …..

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.11 of 15 course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. …..

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ” (38) Perusal of the said judgment of Dharam Singh (supra) indicates that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive directions as, case after case, orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been met with fresh technicalities which prolong the insecurity of those who have Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.12 of 15 already laboured for years on daily wages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that such circumstances demand the imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines and verifiable compliance and that as a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and, therefore, it must organize its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow the said obligations would not be a mere negligence but rather is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for the workers. (39) In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, without there being any regularization scheme, issued directions for the regularization of the said persons who had worked for decades from the date the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. (40) The instant case stands on a better footing, inasmuch as the petitioners have worked from the year 1984-85 till the year 2022, i.e., having rendered almost 37 to 38 years of continuous service and having spent their entire working life working under the respondents. The respondent No.1 has been benefited from their service. Despite having been retrenched in the year 2007, the writ Court, vide the order dated 22.08.2017, directed that the duration for which the petitioners had worked was to be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioners for regularization. The respondents, in the earlier rejection order, have admittedly regularized the services of the persons who were working under the respondent No.1 Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.13 of 15 and by means of the impugned order, it has been indicated that the petitioners had been retrenched in the year 2007. (41) Nothing would be more adverse to the petitioners than the aforesaid grounds which have been taken by the respondents for their non-regularization, including the ground of respondent No.1 being in a precarious financial position. Merely because the respondent No.1 is in a precarious financial position, the rights which have accrued to the petitioners cannot be negated and the continuous working of 37 to 38 years cannot be written off on the whims, fancies and caprices of the respondent No.1. Even otherwise, the earlier direction of the writ Court dated 18.04.2006, directing the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners for regularization, as well as the subsequent order of the writ Court dated

22.08.2017, have attained finality; rather, the respondents have acquiesced to the said orders. (42) In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Court finds that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise the extraordinary powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (43) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued, quashing the impugned order dated 17.01.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as regularized with effect from the date of the orders of the writ Court dated 18.04.2006. The respondents shall also pay the retiral dues, including pension, gratuity and other benefits, to Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.14 of 15 petitioner No.1 and the legal heirs of the petitioner No.2 with effect from the date of retirement. (44) It is made clear that the regularization order would only be for the purpose of their retiral benefits and the petitioners would not be entitled to any other benefits for the aforesaid period of service. (45) The respondents shall comply with this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Shubhankar [Abdul Moin, J.] Writ-A No.3068 of 2018 Page No.15 of 15 SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench