# Altaf Husain v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 140
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-08
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 26095 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/altaf-husain-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52192
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

regularization rules in 2016-the Petitioner was
not working on daily charge basis-Petitioner
continued to work from 1991 till 2014 when he
was removed and in 2017 he was engaged as
an
outsource
employee-on
the
date
of
enforcement of rules -the Petitioner was not in
employment-no error in the impugned order.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certified copy of this order and bring the
disciplinary proceeding itself shall be
concluded within further period of two
months. Petitioner shall be entitled to
current salary only and arrears of salary
shall depend upon the outcome of the result
of the writ petition. Since petitioner was
already reinstated while enquiry was gong
on by revoking suspension order, the
authority may not suspend him again in the
given facts and circumstances of the case.

22.

With
the
aforesaid
observations and directions, this petition
stands allowed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 140
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 26095 of 2018

Altaf Husain ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rafat Raza Khan

Regularisation-U.P.-Regularization claim got
rejected-that on date of enforcement of
regularization rules in 2016-the Petitioner was
not working on daily charge basis-Petitioner
continued to work from 1991 till 2014 when he
was removed and in 2017 he was engaged as
an
outsource
employee-on
the
date
of
enforcement of rules -the Petitioner was not in
employment-no error in the impugned order.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Janardan Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2008 (1)
UPLBEC 498

2. Arjun Kumar Singh & ors. -Writ - A No. 16819
of 2018

3. Ram Nath Verma & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2017 (7) ADJ 46

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. In the light of office order dated
02.03.2021 a photocopy of the rejoinder
affidavit is supplied by learned counsel for
the petitioner which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rafat Raza Khan, learned counsel for the
contesting respondents.

3. Petitioner before this Court is
aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2018,
whereby, his claim for regularization as a
Group - D employee has been rejected.

4. Briefly stated facts are that the
petitioner was initially appointed on daily
wage basis on the post of Fitter on
01.02.1999. He claimed to have discharged
his duties as such and was working at the
relevant
point
of
time
when
the
regularization rules dated 12.09.2016 were
brought into force by the State Government
providing for regularization of daily wage/
work charge/ contract employees upon
Group - C and Group - D posts of the
Government
Department
(outside
the
purview of Public Service Commission).
This Government Order though was issued
in respect of Government Department posts
but it is an admitted position to the parties
that this Government Order was adopted by
the
Urban
Development
Department.
7 All. Altaf Husain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
141
5. The claim of the petitioner has
been rejected on the ground that on the date
of enforcement of regularization rules in
the year 2016, petitioner was not working
on daily charge basis. It has been held that
the petitioner continued to work from 1991
till 2014 when he was removed and it was
in the year 2017 only when the then
Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad engaged
Altaf Hussain as an outsource employee.
Thus, petitioner being not in employment
on
the
date
of
enforcement
of
regularization order, could not be given
benefit
thereof
and
his
claim
for
regularization came to be rejected.

6. The submission advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner was in employment on the cut off
date i.e. 31.12.2001 as he was engaged
initially on 01.02.1999 and he worked until
the year 2014 when he was fired being only
a daily wage employee but he was reengaged in the year 2017 and therefore, the
period from 2014 and 2017 should be taken
to be of artificial breaks. He has placed
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of Janardan Yadav v. State of
U.P. & Others, 2008 (1) UPLBEC 498
followed by a coordinate bench of this
Court in the case of Arjun Kumar Singh
& 11 Others being Writ - A No. 16819 of
2018 and also another judgment of
coordinate bench in the case of Ram Nath
Verma & Others v. State of U.P. &
Others, 2017 (7) ADJ 46.

7. Having perused the order
impugned, the relevant regularization rules,
2016 placed before me and the authorities
cited, I find that the rules do provide vide
its clause 6(1) that an employee seeking
regularization must have been working as
daily wager or contract employee or as a
work charge employee since prior to
31.12.2001 and must be in service on the
date of enforcement of regularization rules.
The regularization Rules came into force
on 12.09.2016. There is no quarrel that the
petitioner was engaged on daily wage post
on 01.02.1999 and worked till 2014, so he
was in employment prior to the cut off date,
but unfortunately before the rules were
brought into force, petitioner had already
been removed from the employment. Thus,
on the date of enforcement of rules,
petitioner was not in employment.

8. The judgment in the case of
Janardan Yadav (supra) deals with the
provisions of sub clause 6(1) of the rules
and interprets it to mean that an employee
must be in employment since prior to cut
off date and on the date of enforcement of
rules, but he is not required to be in
continuous service from the cut off date till
the enforcement of rules, it has been held
that it is not the intendment of rule making
authority. The word "continuing in service"
has been interpreted to mean that he has
worked with artificial breaks during the
period but must have been in employment
since prior to cut off date and on the date of
enforcement of rules. This fact in the case
of Janardan Yadav (supra) was not in
dispute that the petitioner Janardan Yadav
was working in the establishment on the
date of commencement of Rules, 2001.
Paragraph no. 5 of the judgment is
reproduced hereunder:

 "Since the facts are not is dispute
and it is also not disputed that the
petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis
in 1984, i.e., before 29.6.1991 and was also
working on the date of commencement of
Rules 2001, i.e, on 21.12.2001, thus it is
evident that he was entitled to be
considered for regularization under the
said Rules. The only question up for
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consideration is whether the said Rules
require continuous service throughout, i.e.,
from the date of initial engagement till the
commencement of the Rules. In my view,
there is no such requirement under the
Rules as is apparent from perusal thereof.
Rule 4(1) of Rules 2001 is reproduced as
under:

 "4. Regularisation of daily wages
appointments on Group ''D' posts.- (1) Any
person who-

 (a)was directly appointed on daily
wage basis on a Group ''D' post in the
Government service before June 29, 1991
and is continuing in service as such on the
date of commencement of these rules; and

 (b)possessed requisite qualification
prescribed for regular appointment for that
post at the time of such appointment on daily
wage basis under the relevant service rules,
shall be considered for regular appointment
in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may
be available in Group ''D' post, on the date of
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."

9. Same is the legal view taken by a
coordinate bench in the case of Arjun
Kumar Singh (supra). The coordinate bench
has found regularization rules 2001 and 2016
to be providing regularization on some
parameters and I do not find these judgments
to be in any manner helpful to the petitioner.
The judgment in the case of Ram Nath
Verma (supra) by another coordinate bench
also holds that a person must be in service on
the date of enforcement of rules. Vide
paragraph nos. 16 and 17 the Court has
observed thus:
 "16. The Court found that only
requirement under Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules,
2001 is that the incumbent should directly be
appointed on daily wage basis before
29.6.1991 and is continuing in service as
such on the date of commencement of the
Rules.

 17. The respondents have admitted
in the said case that the petitioners fulfill all
the three conditions mentioned in Rule-4 of the
Rules, 2001 except their continuous service.
This fact clearly demonstrates that the issue in
respect of the three conditions i.e. (i) their
engagement should be of prior to 1991; (ii)
they have requisite qualification required for
the regular appointment; and (iii) they are
continuing in service, cannot be re-opened by
the respondents in subsequent proceedings as
the admitted position noted by the Court has
not been challenged by the respondents.
Hence, the only question which requires
consideration is that whether the ground for
rejection of their regularization that they are
continuously working, is to be considered."

9. In view of the above, I do not find
any manifest error in the order impugned.

10. Petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 142
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 50923 of 2008

Anwar Ahmad Siddiqui ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents