Sunder Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Panchayati Raj

: Dharmesh Sinha, Amit Kumar Mishra, Arun Kumar Srivastava, Naresh Singh, Prashant Kumar Chaurasia, Purshottam Chaurasia, Suresh Chandra Yadava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.02.2018 whereby their applications for regularization on a Class-IV has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that petitioners were engaged in service on contract basis by means of written orders issued by the State Government on

22.03.2000. The said contract was only uptil 31.12.2000 but were continued, thereafter, in service and their services were orally dispensed with which was challenged in Writ-A No. 5974 of 2001 in which by means of interim order dated 09.11.2001, they were continued in service and are still in service in terms of interim order.

4. It is submitted that a perusal of the order dated 12.07.2000 issued by the State Government (Annexure-2) reveals that petitioners were attached with the Panchayat Raj Department on a Class-IV post till 31.12.2000 and it was only their wages which were required to be paid from the U.P. General Consolidated Fund but the impugned order has been passed treating petitioners as an employee of the fund itself and therefore, holding that since the aforesaid fund does not come within purview of the U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Department on Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts (Outside the 2 WRIA No. 7895 of 2018 Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016, their representation has been rejected.

5. It is, therefore, submitted that impugned order has been passed on an erroneous assumption ignoring the fact that petitioner's were in fact employed on contract basis with the Panchayat Raj Department itself and not with the fund.

6. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that as would be evident from the initial orders itself, petitioners were engaged on contract basis for a particular time and have continued thereafter only in pursuance of interim protection order dated 09.11.2001 granted to them. It is submitted that since petitioners were approved for work on daily wages under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Samanya Labh Nidhi, which is a Non-Governmental Organization, petitioners did not have any right to be regularized in service.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioners' application for regularization has been rejected primarily on the ground that they are employees of the aforesaid fund namely the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Samanya Labh Nidhi which not being governmental in nature, petitioners case would not come within purview of the Rules of 2016.

8. It is, however, evident that concerned authority while passing the impugned order has totally lost sight of the fact that petitioners were engaged on contract basis upon the letter issued by the State Government itself on 22.03.2000 and by the subsequently letter dated 12.07.2000, it is clearly indicated that petitioners were working on contract basis with the Panchayat Raj Department and not with the aforesaid fund, which was utilized only for purposes of payment of their wages.

9. It is, therefore, evident that impugned orders have been passed on the clear misconception with regard to nature of contract and the organization with which they were working.

10. It is also evident that impugned orders have not taken into account other aspects as required to be seen in terms of Rules of 2016.

11. The said aspect has also been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 3 WRIA No. 7895 of 2018 the case of Shripal & Another versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 in the following manner:- "14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite dally-wage status or continued unfair practices.

15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable. particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement."

12. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order dated

09.02.2018 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to reconsider the grievance of petitioners with regard to their regularization in terms of the regularization rules applicable upon them in the light of the fact that they are working on contract basis with the Panchayat Raj Department and and not with the fund. Decision with regard to same shall be taken by the concerned authority expeditiously within a period of two month from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Shripal & Another (supra) which shall be taken into account.

13. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. September 4, 2025 Satish (Manish Mathur,J.) SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

: Dharmesh Sinha, Amit Kumar Mishra, Arun Kumar Srivastava, Naresh Singh, Prashant Kumar Chaurasia, Purshottam Chaurasia, Suresh Chandra Yadava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.02.2018 whereby their applications for regularization on a Class-IV has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that petitioners were engaged in service on contract basis by means of written orders issued by the State Government on

22.03.2000. The said contract was only uptil 31.12.2000 but were continued, thereafter, in service and their services were orally dispensed with which was challenged in Writ-A No. 5974 of 2001 in which by means of interim order dated 09.11.2001, they were continued in service and are still in service in terms of interim order.

4. It is submitted that a perusal of the order dated 12.07.2000 issued by the State Government (Annexure-2) reveals that petitioners were attached with the Panchayat Raj Department on a Class-IV post till 31.12.2000 and it was only their wages which were required to be paid from the U.P. General Consolidated Fund but the impugned order has been passed treating petitioners as an employee of the fund itself and therefore, holding that since the aforesaid fund does not come within purview of the U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Department on Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts (Outside the 2 WRIA No. 7895 of 2018 Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016, their representation has been rejected.

5. It is, therefore, submitted that impugned order has been passed on an erroneous assumption ignoring the fact that petitioner's were in fact employed on contract basis with the Panchayat Raj Department itself and not with the fund.

6. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that as would be evident from the initial orders itself, petitioners were engaged on contract basis for a particular time and have continued thereafter only in pursuance of interim protection order dated 09.11.2001 granted to them. It is submitted that since petitioners were approved for work on daily wages under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Samanya Labh Nidhi, which is a Non-Governmental Organization, petitioners did not have any right to be regularized in service.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioners' application for regularization has been rejected primarily on the ground that they are employees of the aforesaid fund namely the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Samanya Labh Nidhi which not being governmental in nature, petitioners case would not come within purview of the Rules of 2016.

8. It is, however, evident that concerned authority while passing the impugned order has totally lost sight of the fact that petitioners were engaged on contract basis upon the letter issued by the State Government itself on 22.03.2000 and by the subsequently letter dated 12.07.2000, it is clearly indicated that petitioners were working on contract basis with the Panchayat Raj Department and not with the aforesaid fund, which was utilized only for purposes of payment of their wages.

9. It is, therefore, evident that impugned orders have been passed on the clear misconception with regard to nature of contract and the organization with which they were working.

10. It is also evident that impugned orders have not taken into account other aspects as required to be seen in terms of Rules of 2016.

11. The said aspect has also been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 3 WRIA No. 7895 of 2018 the case of Shripal & Another versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 in the following manner:- "14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite dally-wage status or continued unfair practices.

15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable. particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement."

12. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order dated

09.02.2018 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to reconsider the grievance of petitioners with regard to their regularization in terms of the regularization rules applicable upon them in the light of the fact that they are working on contract basis with the Panchayat Raj Department and and not with the fund. Decision with regard to same shall be taken by the concerned authority expeditiously within a period of two month from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Shripal & Another (supra) which shall be taken into account.

13. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. September 4, 2025 Satish (Manish Mathur,J.) SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench