# Anjani Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 958
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-31
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 23812 of 2003
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anjani-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52605
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Effect of being minor at the time of appointment
on the regularization, particularly when no
charge
of
concealment
or
fraud
or
misrepresentation
was
leveled
to
obtain
appointment.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
regularization - Petitioner was appointed
as Forester in 1991 and regularized on
26.03.2002
-
Regularization
was
cancelled on the ground that petitioner
was below 18 years on the date of
appointment - Validity challenged - No
charge of practicing concealment or fraud
or
misrepresentation
to
obtain
appointment was leveled - Effect :

Held : Bearing in mind that the writ petitioner is
working
since
1991,
his
services
stood
regularized on 26.03.2002 and by virtue of the
cancellation of the regularization order dated
07.05.2003, he was accorded interim protection
by this Court on 14.07.2003 and he continues to
work till date and there is nothing on record to
show that there is anything adverse, thus,
applying the principles of equity, writ petition is
being decided in the following terms: (a) the
order
dated
07.05.2003
passed
by
the
Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi
cancelling
the
regularization
of
the
writ
petitioner dated 26.03.2002 on the post of
Forester is set aside; (b) The order dated
26.06.2002 regularizing the services of the writ
petitioner is restored. [Para 14] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Satya Narain
(Driver) and others, 2005 (5) AWC 4843; Ram
Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
2023 (12) ADJ 224; Mohd. Ashique v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, 2025 (4) ADJ 396 -
referred to.

List of Acts
U.P.
Reorganization
Act,
2000;
U.P.
Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on
Group 'C' Posts (Outside Purview of Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules,

## Text

958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 958
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ - A No. 23812 of 2003

Anjani Kumar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jay Prakash Gupta, V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Effect of being minor at the time of appointment
on the regularization, particularly when no
charge
of
concealment
or
fraud
or
misrepresentation
was
leveled
to
obtain
appointment.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
regularization - Petitioner was appointed
as Forester in 1991 and regularized on
26.03.2002
-
Regularization
was
cancelled on the ground that petitioner
was below 18 years on the date of
appointment - Validity challenged - No
charge of practicing concealment or fraud
or
misrepresentation
to
obtain
appointment was leveled - Effect :

Held : Bearing in mind that the writ petitioner is
working
since
1991,
his
services
stood
regularized on 26.03.2002 and by virtue of the
cancellation of the regularization order dated
07.05.2003, he was accorded interim protection
by this Court on 14.07.2003 and he continues to
work till date and there is nothing on record to
show that there is anything adverse, thus,
applying the principles of equity, writ petition is
being decided in the following terms: (a) the
order
dated
07.05.2003
passed
by
the
Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi
cancelling
the
regularization
of
the
writ
petitioner dated 26.03.2002 on the post of
Forester is set aside; (b) The order dated
26.06.2002 regularizing the services of the writ
petitioner is restored. [Para 14] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Satya Narain
(Driver) and others, 2005 (5) AWC 4843; Ram
Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
2023 (12) ADJ 224; Mohd. Ashique v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, 2025 (4) ADJ 396 -
referred to.

List of Acts
U.P.
Reorganization
Act,
2000;
U.P.
Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on
Group 'C' Posts (Outside Purview of Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules,
1998.

List of Keywords
Regularization; Cancellation; Regular employee;
deficiency;
Adverse;
Eligibility;
Suitability;
Concealment;
Fraud;
Misrepresentation;
Consequential benefits.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 07.05.20023 cancelling
regularization of petitioner.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Jay Prakash Gupta, V.
K. Singh
Advs. For the Respondent : Rahul Malviya, S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jay Prakash Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel,
who appears for State-respondents.

2. The counsel for the rival parties
have made a joint statement that they do
not propose to file any further affidavits
10 All. Anjani Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
959
thus with the consent of the parties,
writ petition is being decided at the fresh
stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is
that the writ petitioner being fully eligible
and qualified in all respects, was appointed
as a Forester/ Van Daroga, a Group 'C' post
in the year 1991 in the Forest Department
at Dehradun which is a part of State of
Uttar Pradesh prior to U.P. Reorganization
Act, 2000. It is also the case of the writ
petitioner is that the writ petitioner's
candidature
is/
was
considered
for
regularization in terms of the Subordinate
Forest (Deputy Rangers and Foresters)
Service Rule, 1951 read with the provisions
contained
under
Uttar
Pradesh
Regularization
of
Daily
Wages
Appointment on Group 'C' Posts (Outside
Purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission) Rules, 1998. The process for
regularization stood commenced by the
respondents and the writ petitioner was
required to submit high school certificate
and he appeared for physical walking test at
Allahabad held on March, 2002. Thereafter
on 26.03.2002, an order came to be passed
by
the
respondents,
regularizing
the
services of the writ petitioner. The writ
petitioner joined as a regular employee on
01.04.2002. However to the under surprise
of the writ petitioner, an order came to be
passed by the Conservator of Forest,
Varanasi Division, Varanasi whereby the
regularization of the writ petitioner was
cancelled on 07.05.2003 on the ground that
on the date of the engagement, the writ
petitioner was aged about 16 years 8
months and 28 days since the date of the
birth was 01.10.1974.

4. Questioning the said order, the
writ
petitioner
preferred
the
present
petition.
5. This this Court on 14.07.2023
proceeded to pass the following orders:

 "Learned standing counsel is
granted four weeks' time to file counter
affidavit. Petitioner will have two weeks'
time thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

 List in the 1st week of Sept. 2003.

 Petitioner
was
engaged
in
January 1991 on daily wages in the Forest
Department. It is contended that there are
no rules for engagement/appointment on
daily wage basis and that petitioner had
not concealed his age. At that time,
petitioner, was about 16 years of age. was
about In view of decision in Putti Lal's
case,
the
Regularisation
Committee
recommended
the
regularisation
of
petitioner on 26th March, 2002. Petitioner
was regularised and he took over charge
on 1.4.2002. Now a show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner as to why he should
not be held entitled on the ground that he
was minor on 29.5.2001-

 The question to be considered in
this case, is that whether a person, who
was less than 18 years of age could be
offered appointment/engagement on daily
wages in January 1991 in the Forest
Department and whether petitioner was
guilty of concealing his age.

 Until
further
orders,
the
petitioner shall be allowed to continue as
regular employer and be paid salary
regularly."

6. Post passing of the aforesaid
orders, affidavits have been exchanged.

7. Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner has sought to argue that the entire
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exercise sought to be undertaken by the
respondents culminating into passing of the
order dated 07.05.2003 cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law for the simple reason that
it is not the case of the concealment, fraud
or misrepresentation and further the writ
petitioner was inducted in the month of
January,
1991
and
merely
because
according to the respondents, the writ
petitioner was not over and above 18 years
of age would not take away the vested right
of the petitioner and there is nothing on
record to show that there is no deficiency
or anything adverse against the petitioner.
Submission is that with open eyes, the
regularization of the writ petitioner was
done and the writ petitioner in pursuance of
the interim order dated 14.07.2003 while
staying
the
order
dated
07.05.2003
cancelling
the
regularization
is
still
performing the duties in that regard. It is
also contended that had there been any
deficiency or deformity in that regard, the
services of the writ petitioner could not
have been regularized and with the passage
of time, the irregularity stands cured as
according to him, the same can at best be
attributed to be a an irregularity and not an
illegality. Reliance has been placed upon
the Division Bench judgment of this court
in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. through
its Chairman/ Managing Director and
Executive
Engineer,
Electricity
Distribution
Division-II,
U.P.
Power
Corporation Ltd. v. Satya Narain (Driver)
and State of Uttar Pradesh through
Secretary,
Department
of
Energy,
Government of Uttar Pradesh; 2005 (5)
AWC 4843, Ram Prakash v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others; 2023 (12) ADJ 224
and Mohd. Ashique v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others; 2025 (4) ADJ 396.

8. Countering the submissions so
raised by the learned Counsel for the writ
petitioner, Sri Rahul Malviya, learned
Standing Counsel has sought to argue that
the contentions so sought to be raised by
the writ petitioner cannot be accepted even
for a single moment, particularly, when one
of the requirement for regularization is
eligibility and suitability on the cut off
date, where the regularization is to be done
and here on 29.06.1991 which is the cut off
date, based upon the date of birth of the
writ petitioner being 01.10.1974, he was 16
years 8 months and 28 days, thus, there was
no
occasion
to
regularize
the
writ
petitioner.

9. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and gone through the records
carefully.

10. The facts are not in issue. It is
not issue that the writ petitioner was
engaged as a daily wager in Group 'C' post
in the month of January, 1991 and that is
why in view of the provisions contained
under writ petitioner, the cutoff date being
29.06.1991, the petitioner was found to be
working on the said date and his services
stood regularized on 26.03.2002. The bone
of contention is the fact that the petitioner
was not 18 years on the date of the
consideration for regularization i.e. cut off
date has based upon its date of birth being
01.10.1974, he was just 16 years 8 months
and 28 days. The issue akin to what is
before this court came up for consideration
before the Division Bench of this Court in
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. through its
Chairman/
Managing
Director
and
Executive
Engineer,
Electricity
Distribution
Division-II,
U.P.
Power
Corporation Ltd. (supra) in paragraph 5
and 9 observed as under:

 "[5] On the basis of that Medical
Report, the service book was written up. If
10 All. Anjani Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
961
that writing up of the service book is
correct, then the Hon'ble Single Judge's
finding is perfectly in order and the
respondent would retire with the expiry of
the month of September 2004. On behalf of
the appellant, who was the respondent in
the Court below, it is argued that on the
basis of the entered date of birth, the entry
into service of the writ petitioner on
22.10.1961 would mean that he would have
joined the service at the age of 15 years
only. The rule requires a minimum age of
22 years. The age of majority requires that
he be at least 18 when he goes into service.
It is also argued that by the impugned
order the respondent would be getting the
benefit of nine month's salary without
working.

 [9] This is how the above
principles work put in the present case. If
the writ petitioner was admitted into
service below age, both parties were
equally guilty: no misrepresentation of the
writ petitioner is on record. The service
that was rendered by the writ petitioner
which still under age, was paid for by the
appellant, and no more. The breach of
rules on both sides cannot make the writ
petitioner get born earlier."

11. Further a coordinate Bench in
Ram Prakash (supra), para 4 and 5 which
was observed as under:

 "4. He further submits that there
is
no
allegation
of
fraud
or
misrepresentation on the part of the
petitioner
and
once
the
respondents
continued to permit the petitioner in service
for about three decades, despite clear entry
of date of birth in the service records, a
highly belated order passed to the
detriment of the interest of the petitioner, is
hit by following authorities of this Court:
 (i)
U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited vs Stya Narain, 2005 (2) ESC
1245,

 (ii) Shiv Charan vs Executive
Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Lalitpur
and another, 2006 (6) ADJ 310.

 5. In the aforesaid authorities,
almost identical situation had arisen before
this Court and the Court, after noting down
the rival contentions, observed that if the
concerned petitioner was admitted into
service below age, both parties were
equally
guilty
and
there
being
no
misrepresentation of the petitioner on
record, denying continuance of service
would be illegal. (vide U.P. Power
Corporation Limited vs Satya Narain)
(supra)."

12. In Mohd. Ashique (supra),
following observed as under:

 "7. A similar issue as regards fall
out of irregularities in initial appointments
on the claim for regularization arose
before the learned Single Judge of this
Court in Surendra Kumar Srivastav vs.
State of U.P. and another (Writ-A No.-
20259 of 2019) and other companion writ
petitions. Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J
predicated the discussion by delineating
concept of irregular appointments in light
of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others vs. The
State of Jharkhand and others reported at
(2018) 8 SCC 238 which held as under:-

 "8. ......The fact that the State of
Jharkhand continued with the irregular
appointments for almost a decade after the
decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear
indication that it believes that it was all
right
to
continue
with
irregular
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointments, and whenever required,
terminate the services of the irregularly
appointed employees on the ground that
they were irregularly appointed. This is
nothing but a form of exploitation of the
employees by not giving them the benefits
of regularisation and by placing the sword
of Damocles over their head. This is
precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari
sought to avoid. "

 8. Thereafter Mishra, J embarked
on a prescient and eloquent discussion on
the concept of regularization of employees
by propounding thus:-

 9. So far as the first ground taken
to non-suit the petitioner is concerned, it is
not in issue that the petitioner was engaged
in the Corporation as daily wage/ contract
employee and has continued in the
employment of the Corporation for nearly
30 years. The plea that he has not been
engaged in accordance with rules and
therefore he has not been found entitled to
be regularised is noticed only to be
rejected. The applicable service rules,
where
under
regular/
substantive
appointment is to be offered, do not
contemplate making of appointment on
daily wage or contract basis. The policy
framed by the State Government to
regularise the services of such employees,
who have continued for decades together
proceeds upon the due acknowledgment of
fact that persons have been engaged on
daily wage basis or on contract basis,
without adhering to the applicable rules
which regulates substantive employment in
the Corporation itself. The non-observance
of service rules while initially engaging
persons on daily wage basis, and it being a
ground to deny regularisation, shows
complete lack of understanding on part of
the Corporation to the very purpose for
which the regularisation rules have been
framed. The object of regularising services
of employees engaged on daily wage basis
is entirely distinct. In most cases of
regularisation the initial engagement of
employee is not in accordance with the
applicable service rules which regulates
substantive employment. The mere fact that
the rules of recruitment have not been
followed at the time of offering contractual
or daily wage employment, does not render
the employment illegal but it merely
remains an irregularity capable of being
regularised by framing rules." (emphasis
supplied)

 9. The concept of regularization
presupposes some initial irregularities in
appointments. By virtue of regularization
the aforesaid infirmities which do not go to
the root of the appointment are cured. After
regularization the employee is treated as a
regularly appointed Government servant.
Upon being regularized employee is
entitled to the status and benefit of other
regularly appointed employees working on
the same post.

 13. The petitioner is entitled for
regularization in light of the cases in point
discussed earlier but for the aforesaid
infirmity of the petitioner being a minor at
the time of his initial appointment on
24.09.183, it is undisputed that the
petitioner was entitled for regularization as
per regularization rules applicable to the
petitioner.

 17. A writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued commanding the
respondents to execute the following
directions:-

 i)
The
petitioner
shall
be
regularized from the date of his attaining
10 All. Devendra Pratap Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
963
majority. An order to this effect
shall be forthwith issued by the appointing
authority of the petitioner.
 ii) The services rendered by the
petitioner
from
the
said
date
of
regularization till his retirement shall be
computed towards pensionable service and
his pension shall be fixed accordingly."
13. On a pointed query being raised
to the learned Standing Counsel whether it
is a case of concealment, fraud or
misrepresentation
practiced
by
the
petitioner, the answer is in negative, on a
further query being raised to the learned
standing counsel whether there is any other
deficiency in the services of the writ
petitioner, the answer is also negative.

14. Bearing in mind that the writ
petitioner is working since 1991, his
services stood regularized on 26.03.2002
and by virtue of the cancellation of the
regularization order dated 07.05.2003, he
was accorded interim protection by this
Court on 14.07.2003 and he continues to
work till date and there is nothing on record
to show that there is anything adverse, thus,
applying the principles of equity, writ
petition is being decided in the following
terms:

 (a) the order dated 07.05.2003
passed by the Conservator of Forest,
Varanasi Circle, Varanasi cancelling the
regularization of the writ petitioner dated
26.03.2002 on the post of Forester is set
aside.

 (b) The order dated 26.06.2002
regularizing the services of the writ
petitioner is restored.

 (c) The writ petition shall be
admissible to all consequential benefits as
admissible under law.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 963
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ - A No. 34651 of 2018

Devendra Pratap Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vijay Pathak, Bhanu Pratap Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Validity of the order rejecting the claim of
compassionate appointment of the 'Unmarried
Brother' on the ground of excluding provision of
Clause 4 of Rule 2 (c) of the Act, 1974.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Compassionate
appointment
-
Unmarried brother of
deceased-employee, died in harness -
Entitlement - Deceased was married, but
his wife had pre-deceased him - Effect -
Scope of the term 'Family' felt into
consideration :

Held : From a perusal of the amendment
incorporated in Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974, it
appears
that
subsequently
the
unmarried
dependent brother has also been included in the
term "family" of the deceased employee -
Primary purpose of Rules of 1974 are beneficial
in nature in order to provide succour to family of
the deceased in case the deceased was the sole
bread earner - The exclusion indicated in
Clause 4 of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974 is in
case the deceased was unmarried. Evidently the