# Ashok [objection filed] v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1496
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-17
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 8006 of 2010
- **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-objection-filed-v-state-of-u-p-43361
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C., R.D. Shahi
U.P.
Regularization
of
Daily
wages
appointment on group 'D' Rules, Rule-4(i)-
petitioner working as Mali since 1989seeking
regularization-as
juniors
to
petitioner
have
already
regularized-in
Janardan Yadav case-Rule 4(i) interpreted
as person seeking regularization must be
in service on commencement of the Actbeing appointed prior to 29.06.1991-no
where
continuous
working
requiredpetition disposed of with direction to
consider regularization within 3 months.
Held: Para-5
It is also relevant to mention that this
Court in the case of Janardan yadav
vs.State of U.P. [(2008) 1 UPLBEC 498,
held that this Court does not find any
ambiguity in Rule 4(1) providing as to
which kind of persons would be entitled
for
regularization
and
it
nowhere
requires that the incumbent must have
worked throughout from the date of
initial
engagement
till
the
date
of
commencement of the Rules. In the
situation, the stand of the State is
contrary to the Rules and it amounts to
adding and reading certain words in Rule
4(1) which have not been inserted by the
legislature. As the rules are applicable
only to daily wage employees, the Rules
framing authority was well aware that
such employee could not have worked
continuously throughout and therefore,
has
clearly
provided
that
the
3 All.
 Ashok [Objection filed] Vs. State of U.P.
1497
engagement must be before 29.6.1991
and he is continuing as such on the date
of commencement of the Rule.
Case Law discussed:
[(2008) 1 UPLBEC 498

## Text

1496
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Administrative
Officer
and
others4
observed that a petition or affidavit
containing
misleading
or
inaccurate
statement amounts to abuse of process of
Court, a litigant cannot take inconsistent
positions. Paras 45, is extracted:-
"45. The judicial process cannot
become an instrument of oppression or
abuse, or a means in the process of the court
to subvert justice, for the reason that the
court exercises its jurisdiction, only in
furtherance of justice. The interests of justice
and public interest coalesce, and therefore,
they are very often one and the same. A
petition or an affidavit containing a
misleading and/or an inaccurate statement,
only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts
to an abuse of process of the court.
16. In this view of the matter, the
petition is dismissed with heavy cost of
Rs. 1,00,000/-.
17. The applicant shall deposit the cost
with the District Magistrate, Mahoba within
one month, failing which, it will be open for
the District Magistrate, Mahoba to recover
the sum as arrears of land revenue. 50
percent of the sum to be deposited with the
Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad to
be utilized by the Mediation and Conciliation
Center of the High Court, Allahabad and the
remaining 50 percent to be used by
Mediation and Conciliation Center of the
District Mahoba.
18. Registrar General of this Court
shall forward a copy of this order to the
District
Magistrate,
Mahoba
for
compliance.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR
ARORA, J.
Service Single No. 8006 of 2010
Ashok [objection filed]
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.A. Khan
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., R.D. Shahi
U.P.
Regularization
of
Daily
wages
appointment on group 'D' Rules, Rule-4(i)-
petitioner working as Mali since 1989seeking
regularization-as
juniors
to
petitioner
have
already
regularized-in
Janardan Yadav case-Rule 4(i) interpreted
as person seeking regularization must be
in service on commencement of the Actbeing appointed prior to 29.06.1991-no
where
continuous
working
requiredpetition disposed of with direction to
consider regularization within 3 months.
Held: Para-5
It is also relevant to mention that this
Court in the case of Janardan yadav
vs.State of U.P. [(2008) 1 UPLBEC 498,
held that this Court does not find any
ambiguity in Rule 4(1) providing as to
which kind of persons would be entitled
for
regularization
and
it
nowhere
requires that the incumbent must have
worked throughout from the date of
initial
engagement
till
the
date
of
commencement of the Rules. In the
situation, the stand of the State is
contrary to the Rules and it amounts to
adding and reading certain words in Rule
4(1) which have not been inserted by the
legislature. As the rules are applicable
only to daily wage employees, the Rules
framing authority was well aware that
such employee could not have worked
continuously throughout and therefore,
has
clearly
provided
that
the
3 All.
 Ashok [Objection filed] Vs. State of U.P.
1497
engagement must be before 29.6.1991
and he is continuing as such on the date
of commencement of the Rule.
Case Law discussed:
[(2008) 1 UPLBEC 498
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra
Kumar Arora, J.)
1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner
and the Standing Counsel on behalf of the
respondents.
2. Petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition praying inter-alia for direction to
the opposite parties to consider the case of
the petitioner for regularisation on the post
of Maali from the date the persons engaged
after the year 1989 have been regularized.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has performed his
duties in Mahdoiya Gram Samaj Vriksha,
Lucknow Range from the year 1989 to
1996 and thereafter he was posted under
Sharda Sahay Nagar, Lucknow Range
from 1996 to June,1986. After being
posted at different places, the petitioner
was
lastly
posted
under
Narauni
Vanshigarh LIT Section, and performed
duties to the satisfaction of the authorities
concerned. The grievance of the petitioner
is that his case for regularization has not
been considered by the opposite parties,
though he has served the department for
more than two decades and was working
on the cut off date as provided in the U. P.
Regularization
of
Daily
Wages
Appointments on Group 'D' Rules, 2001.
He further submits that six persons were
regularized in the year 2002-03 but the
petitioner has been treated differently and
as such the action of the respondents is in
breach of the provisions of Article 14 and
16 of the Constitution.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has vehemently contended that denial of
benefit of regularization for which the
petitioner is legally entitled, is highly
arbitrary, unjustified and causing great
injustice to the petitioners apart from
being discriminatory. Further, he submits
that the petitioner has rendered several
long years of service but he has yet not
been regularized, whereas persons junior
to him have been regularised. He further
submitted that on account of interim order
dated 24.11.2010, the petitioner is being
paid minimum of pay scale admissible to
the petitioners' cadre. In contrast, learned
Standing Counsel has submitted that the
petitioner has not worked regularly since
the date of their engagement and infact
had worked intermittently with breaks in
his services and as such in view of Rule
4(1)(a) he is not entitled for regularization
as claimed.
5. It is not disputed that the
petitioner was engaged in 1989 and was
working on the cut off date provided in
Regularization Rules The requirement
under the Regularisation Rules is that an
incumbent was directly appointed on
daily wage basis in a government service
before 29.6.1991 and is/are continuing in
service
as
such
on
the
date
of
commencement of the said Rules. The
further requirement under the Rules is that
the person must have possessed requisite
qualification
required
for
regular
appointment on that post at the time of
such employment on daily wage basis. It
is also relevant to mention that this Court
in the case of Janardan yadav vs.State of
U.P. [(2008) 1 UPLBEC 498, held that
this Court does not find any ambiguity in
Rule 4(1) providing as to which kind of
persons
would
be
entitled
for
regularization and it nowhere requires that
1498
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
incumbent
must
have
worked
throughout from the date of initial
engagement
till
the
date
of
commencement of the Rules. In the
situation, the stand of the State is contrary
to the Rules and it amounts to adding and
reading certain words in Rule 4(1) which
have not been inserted by the legislature.
As the rules are applicable only to daily
wage employees, the Rules framing
authority was well aware that such
employee
could
not
have
worked
continuously throughout and therefore,
has clearly provided that the engagement
must be before 29.6.1991 and he is
continuing as such on the date of
commencement of the Rule.
6. Needless to observe here that
recently the State Government has issued
a Government Order dated 13.8.2015
whereby it has been provided that persons
working
on
daily
wage/work
charge/contractual basis in the department
of the State Government, its autonomous
bodies, public undertakings/local bodies,
development
authorities
and
Zila
Pancahyat, who were engaged upto
31.3.1996 shall be regularized.
7. In view of above, the opposite
parties are directed to consider the case of
the petitioners for regularization under the
U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages
Appointments on Group 'D' Rules, 2001
and in the light of law laid down in
Janardan case [supra] within a maximum
period of three months from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this
order.
8. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of finally.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 12600 of 2015
Smt. Reeta Chaudhary & Anr.
Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Ram Surat Saroj
Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Manjeet Singh, Shambhu
Chopra
Cr.P.C.-Section-482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-on
basis
of
compromiseoffence u/s 452, 323, 504, 506 IPCLearned Magistrate-rejected application
on ground offence under section 452
being non compoundable-held-keeping
in view of guidelines of Apex Court in
Gyan Singh case-criminal proceeding
quashed.
Held: Para-9 & 12
9. The parties have entered into
compromise and have decided to keep
harmony between them in future and to
live with peace and love. The trial is at
the initial stage of framing charges. The
evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It
has
not
even
started.
In
view
of
compromise between the parties, there
is a minimal chance of witnesses coming
forward in support of the prosecution
case.
The
chance
of
conviction,
therefore, appears to be remote.
12.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case as discussed
earlier in the light of aforesaid guidelines
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it
does not appear just and proper to
dismiss the present application only due
to the reason that the F.I.R. incorporates