# Anant Lal & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 484
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-31
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anant-lal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44335
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Article 226 Constitution of India - casual labour - Black smith - North Eastern Railway -
regularization - Group-C post - Group-D post - Railway Board Circular dated 3.9.1996 - promotional post
- regularization against feeder cadre - Tribunal - writ petition - no infirmity or illegality - writ petition
dismissed.

Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated
31.12.1997 passed by Chief Administrative Officer ( Construction), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and
against judgment and order dated 7.12.2004 whereby Original Application No. 1421 of 1998 filed by
petitioners has been dismissed.(Para 2)

It appears that petitioners were engaged as casual labour (Black smith) in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur
in the between 1978 to 1981. In 1982, petitioners were retrenched pursuant to Chief Engineer's order dated
14th April, 1992. Thereafter, respondents further engaged some casual workers in a project and consequent
thereto, petitioners were engaged as casual labour ( Black smith). One of such order dated 24.11.1989 in
respect to petitioner no. 3 is on record. Petitioners continued to work and after completion of six months, they
were granted regular pay scale as also temporary status.(Para 3)

Question of regularization was considered by Railway Board and we find that in this regard Railway Board
issued a circular on 3.9.1996 and in reference thereto petitioners were also considered for regularization as
Group-D employee and vide order dated 31.12.1997 petitioners were regularized in Group-D against newly
created workcharged post.(Para 4)

Against aforesaid order dated 31.12.1997, original application was filed by petitioners before Tribunal,
Gorakhpur on the ground that petitioners having discharged their duties as casual labour against posts which
are in Group-C, they ought to have been regularized in Group-C and not Group-D post.(Para 5)

Held (Paras:- 9-11)
8 All. Anant Lal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
485
1.In the present case, the matter is covered by Railway Board'sCircular dated 3.9.1996 which permits
regularization only in Group D posts. Even otherwise when a post is liable to be filled in by way of
promotion, persons engaged directly on casual basis can neither claim regularization nor can be so
regularized against such posts which are to be filled in by promotion.

2.We, therefore, find no infirmity or illegality in the approach of Tribunal and finding recorded by it cannot be
said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

3.We, therefore, find no patent irregularity or illegality in the orderof Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed.

Case Law discussed:
1.Ram Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.15863 of 1984 - para 6
2.Ram Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1987) SCALE (2) 1192 - para 7
3.General Manager Northern Railway and others Vs. Jageshwar and others, Civil Appeal No.6413 of 2002 -
para 8
4.Union of India Vs. Moti Lal, (1996) 7 SCC 48 - para 8

## Text

484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 484
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

Writ A No.- 19656 Of 2005

Anant Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Surendra Prasad, A.D.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govind Saran, Kaushlesh Pratap Singh

Article 226 Constitution of India - casual labour - Black smith - North Eastern Railway -
regularization - Group-C post - Group-D post - Railway Board Circular dated 3.9.1996 - promotional post
- regularization against feeder cadre - Tribunal - writ petition - no infirmity or illegality - writ petition
dismissed.

Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated
31.12.1997 passed by Chief Administrative Officer ( Construction), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and
against judgment and order dated 7.12.2004 whereby Original Application No. 1421 of 1998 filed by
petitioners has been dismissed.(Para 2)

It appears that petitioners were engaged as casual labour (Black smith) in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur
in the between 1978 to 1981. In 1982, petitioners were retrenched pursuant to Chief Engineer's order dated
14th April, 1992. Thereafter, respondents further engaged some casual workers in a project and consequent
thereto, petitioners were engaged as casual labour ( Black smith). One of such order dated 24.11.1989 in
respect to petitioner no. 3 is on record. Petitioners continued to work and after completion of six months, they
were granted regular pay scale as also temporary status.(Para 3)

Question of regularization was considered by Railway Board and we find that in this regard Railway Board
issued a circular on 3.9.1996 and in reference thereto petitioners were also considered for regularization as
Group-D employee and vide order dated 31.12.1997 petitioners were regularized in Group-D against newly
created workcharged post.(Para 4)

Against aforesaid order dated 31.12.1997, original application was filed by petitioners before Tribunal,
Gorakhpur on the ground that petitioners having discharged their duties as casual labour against posts which
are in Group-C, they ought to have been regularized in Group-C and not Group-D post.(Para 5)

Held (Paras:- 9-11)
8 All. Anant Lal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
485
1.In the present case, the matter is covered by Railway Board'sCircular dated 3.9.1996 which permits
regularization only in Group D posts. Even otherwise when a post is liable to be filled in by way of
promotion, persons engaged directly on casual basis can neither claim regularization nor can be so
regularized against such posts which are to be filled in by promotion.

2.We, therefore, find no infirmity or illegality in the approach of Tribunal and finding recorded by it cannot be
said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

3.We, therefore, find no patent irregularity or illegality in the orderof Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed.

Case Law discussed:
1.Ram Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.15863 of 1984 - para 6
2.Ram Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1987) SCALE (2) 1192 - para 7
3.General Manager Northern Railway and others Vs. Jageshwar and others, Civil Appeal No.6413 of 2002 -
para 8
4.Union of India Vs. Moti Lal, (1996) 7 SCC 48 - para 8

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for
respondents.

2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging order dated 31.12.1997 passed by Chief Administrative Officer ( Construction), North
Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and against judgment and order dated 7.12.2004 whereby Original
Application No. 1421 of 1998 filed by petitioners has been dismissed.

3. It appears that petitioners were engaged as casual labour (Black smith) in North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur in the between 1978 to 1981. In 1982, petitioners were retrenched pursuant to
Chief Engineer's order dated 14th April, 1992. Thereafter, respondents further engaged some casual
workers in a project and consequent thereto, petitioners were engaged as casual labour ( Black
smith). One of such order dated 24.11.1989 in respect to petitioner no. 3 is on record. Petitioners
continued to work and after completion of six months, they were granted regular pay scale as also
temporary status.

4. Question of regularization was considered by Railway Board and we find that in this
regard Railway Board issued a circular on 3.9.1996 and in reference thereto petitioners were also
considered for regularization as Group-D employee and vide order dated 31.12.1997 petitioners
were regularized in Group-D against newly created workcharged post.

5. Against aforesaid order dated 31.12.1997, original application was filed by petitioners
before Tribunal, Gorakhpur on the ground that petitioners having discharged their duties as casual
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

labour against posts which are in Group-C, they ought to have been regularized in Group-C and
not Group-D post.

6. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for petitioners could not show any provision or
rule under which a person could have been regularized in Group-C posts in Railway where all
posts are liable to be filled in by promotion. For this purpose Tribunal has relied on a Full Bench
Decision in Ram Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition ( Civil) No.
15863 of 1984 wherein it was held that a Group-C post being a promotional post, a person even
directly engaged on casual basis, cannot be regularized on such post but would be liable to be
regularized in feeder cadre i.e against posts in Group D, as Group C post is an only promotional
post and hence regularization of directly engaged persons is not permissible. No law otherwise has
been shown to us so as to entitle petitioners for being regularized on a Group-C post directly.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners sought to rely on an order of Supreme Court dated
6.9.1990, passed in Civil Misc. Petition No. 31378 of 1988, Ram Kumar and others Vs. Union of
India and others, (1987) SCALE (2) 1192, but from a perusal thereof, we find that statement was
made by counsel for Railways in that matter, relying on Board's instructions dated 20th January,
1985, that those people who were working for more than five years may be regularized in Class III
post and on that statement, miscellaneous application was disposed of.

8. We may also notice here that subsequently similar issue has been considered by
Supreme Court in General Manager Northern Railway and others Vs. Jageshwar and others (
Civil Appeal No.6413 of 2002) decided on 1.4.2009, wherein Jageshwar and two others were
engaged as casual labour Gangmen. Their services were temporarily used as Mates in construction
organization. The post of Mate was a Group-C post. Subsequently, when the three workers became
surplus they were screened and optioned for absorption in Group-D post for which they consented
and accordingly regularized in Group-D post in October, 1996 and September, 1997. These three
workers i.e. Jageshwar and two others approached Central Administrative Tribunal contending that
since they were working as Mates, a Group-C post, they ought to have been regularized in GroupC. Tribunal though did not accept contention that they should have been regularized as Group-C on
the ground that Group-C post since are liable to be filled in only by promotion, no person can seek
direct entry by way of regularization. However, relying on earlier Supreme Court judgment in
Union of India Vs. Moti Lal, (1996) 7 SCC 48, Tribunal directed that pay drawn by those workers
as Mate shall be protected as personal to them till they are promoted to GroupC post. Railway
Department aggrieved by judgment of Tribunal came to High Court but writ petition was dismissed
hence, matter came before Supreme Court. It was held that judgment in Moti Lal ( supra) was not
applicable for the reason that casual appointment as Mate, a Group-C post, would give no benefit to
such appointee since post of Mate is an exclusive promotional post and for that reason they were
regularized in Group-D. In Moti Lal ( supra) also it was held that in Railway, a person cannot seek
regularization on Group-C post which is liable to be filled in by promotion and instead can be
regularized only in Group-D post. Having said so Supreme Court said that in Moti Lal ( supra)
since in the mean time they were regularized as Mates hence their position was not disturbed by
exercising power under Article 142 but that does not lay down a proposition of law and no person
8 All. Anant Lal & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
487
who has screened and absorbed in Group-D can claim any benefit against higher post whether in
regard to pay-scale or otherwise. Paras 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment in General Manager Northern
Railway and others Vs. Jageshwar ( supra) are reproduced as under :-

"3. Motilal (supra) has no application. In that case, respondents were directly
appointed as casual mates in Class III, though the post of made was an exclusive promotion post.
They were regularized in a lower post. The Tribunal directed that they should be regularized as
'mates'.This Court held that respondents were not entitled to be regularized in Group III posts. But
having regard to their long service of 22 to 25 years, this Court in exercise of powers under Article
142 left their regularization as mates undisturbed making it clear that the direction should not be
treated as precedent.

4. This Court in Motilal case (supra) did not lay down anyproposition that when an
employee is absorbed in a different organization, his previous pay should be protected. Absorption
in Railways was not in pursuance of any legal right. To avoid hardship to the employees of the
construction organization on humanitarian grounds, the Railways chose to consider the surplus
labour of that organization for absorption after screening them. When being so screened and
absorbed, an employee cannot counted that he should be absorbed in a post equivalent to a post he
was holding in the previous organization nor could the Tribunal or High Court direct that his pay
should be protected.

5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the orders of theHigh Court and
Tribunal are set aside and as a consequence the original application is dismissed."

9. In the present case, the matter is covered by Railway Board'sCircular dated 3.9.1996
which permits regularization only in Group D posts. Even otherwise when a post is liable to be
filled in by way of promotion, persons engaged directly on casual basis can neither claim
regularization nor can be so regularized against such posts which are to be filled in by promotion.

10. We, therefore, find no infirmity or illegality in the approach of Tribunal and finding
recorded by it cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court in
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. We, therefore, find no patent irregularity or illegality in the orderof Tribunal. Writ
petition is dismissed.
-----------
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 488
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 269 Of 2013

Munshi Lal @ Munshi Ram ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
Amar Singh, Rajendra Prasad Misra

Counsel for Respondent:
G.A.

Legislation referred to : Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 300 (Exception I), 302, 304 Part I, 304 Part II;
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 313.

FACTS :
The accused-appellant Munshi Lal was convicted by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4,
Gonda, vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 in S.T. No. 203/2011, arising out of Case Crime No.
122/2011 under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S.-Itiyathok, District Gonda, and was sentenced to life imprisonment
with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, six months rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution case was that on 02.04.2011 the children of the accused-appellant and the deceased (Pushpa
Devi) left for school. Returning home, they found the main door locked. On 03.04.2011 at 8:00 a.m. the
accused-appellant informed his son on mobile that the key was kept inside the Ramayana. Upon opening the
house the son found his mother lying dead with a nylon cord wrapped around her neck. An F.I.R. was lodged
on 03.04.2011 under Section 302 I.P.C. The post-mortem conducted by Dr. P.K. Srivastava on 03.05.2011
recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation, with multiple ante-mortem injuries including a
ligature mark around the upper part of the neck with fracture of the right cornu of the hyoid bone.
Eight prosecution witnesses, including P.W.3 (Raj Kumar Pandey, son) and P.W.4 (Akshay Kumar, younger
son), were examined. Both corroborated the prosecution version. The accused-appellant in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges. Two defence witnesses were produced to establish that on the
date of the incident the appellant was not present at home, having gone to attend a cremation. The defence
plea was also raised that the accused-appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation, having found the
deceased in a compromising position with another man, and in the heat of passion wrapped a nylon cord
around her neck.
In appeal, learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits and confined arguments solely
to the question of sentence, submitting that the case was one of sudden provocation without premeditation
and that the sentence of life imprisonment was excessive. The A.G.A. did not dispute this approach.

QUESTIONS OF LAW :