# Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 73
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-16
- **Case number:** BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN Service Single No. 4290 of 2014
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwan-das-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47300
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Regularization -
Principles
of
Parity
-
U.P.
Regularization
of
Daily
Wages
Appointment on Group-D Posts Rules,
2001 - If any employee has engaged as
a daily wager prior to cut off date i.e.
29.6.1991 and is serving as daily wager
on
21.12.2001,
the
date
of
commencement of the Rules, 2001, his
services should have been regularized
in terms of regularization Rules, 2001.

It has been not disputed that the judgment
of this Court in re: Janardan Yadav (infra),
laying
down
the
abovementioned
preposition, has not been quashed or
modified by the Division Bench of this Court
or by Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, that
judgment is still a good law governing the
field. Further, the services of identically
placed employees have been regularized
following this decision, therefore, on the
basis of principles of parity the services of
the petitioner may be regularized in terms of
the directions issued in re: Janardan Yadav
(infra). (Para 9, 10)

Writ petition allowed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

## Text

8 All. Bhagwan Das Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
73

11. The consequences to follow.

12. It is needless to say that if the
competent authority wants to pass appropriate
order following due procedure of law and rules,
such order may be passed with expedition
preferably within a period of three months. It is
also provided that in view of decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Chairman L.I.C.
Vs. A. Masilamani (2013) 6 SCC 530, the fresh
order may be passed rectifying the legal error
from the stage of defect.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A73
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN

Service Single No. 4290 of 2014

Bhagwan Das ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shobha Nath Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Regularization -
Principles
of
Parity
-
U.P.
Regularization
of
Daily
Wages
Appointment on Group-D Posts Rules,
2001 - If any employee has engaged as
a daily wager prior to cut off date i.e.
29.6.1991 and is serving as daily wager
on
21.12.2001,
the
date
of
commencement of the Rules, 2001, his
services should have been regularized
in terms of regularization Rules, 2001.

It has been not disputed that the judgment
of this Court in re: Janardan Yadav (infra),
laying
down
the
abovementioned
preposition, has not been quashed or
modified by the Division Bench of this Court
or by Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, that
judgment is still a good law governing the
field. Further, the services of identically
placed employees have been regularized
following this decision, therefore, on the
basis of principles of parity the services of
the petitioner may be regularized in terms of
the directions issued in re: Janardan Yadav
(infra). (Para 9, 10)

Writ petition allowed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Janardan Yadav Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (1)
ADJ 60 (Para 6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shobh Nath Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari, thereby
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
25.06.2014, passed by the opposite party
No.3, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this
writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
opposite
parties
to
regularize the services of the petitioner in
pursuance of U.P. Regularization of Daily
Wages Appointments on Group-D Posts
Rules, 2001.
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
thereby commanding the opposite parties to
pay the minimum of pay-scale to the
petitioner with immediate effect in the
interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has assailed the order dated 25.06.2014
passed by the Divisional Forest Officer,
District-Faizabad rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for regularization.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn attention of this Court towards
the impugned order dated 25.06.2014
wherein this is admission on the part of the
opposite parties that the petitioner has
discharged his duties from March 1991 to
June 1991, September 1991 to June 1992,
August 1992 to October 1992, December,
1992 to June 1994, August 1994 to April
1996 and December 2000 to March 2004.

5. As per the opposite parties, the
petitioner has not discharged his continuous
duties with effect from the cut off date i.e.
29.06.1991 till 21.12.2001, the date of
commencement of Rules, so his claim has
been rejected. The relevant Rules are
known as U.P. Regularization of Daily
Wages Appointment on Group-D Posts
Rules, 2001 (here-in-after referred to as the
"Rules, 2001").

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance of the decision of this
Court rendered in re: Janardan Yadav vs.
State of U.P. reported in [2008 (1) ADJ 60]
referring para-8, whereby this Court has
held that if any daily wager has been
engaged prior to cut off date i.e. 29.06.1991
so indicated in the Rules, 2001 and was
working on the date of commencement of
Rules, 2001 i.e. 21.12.2001, the services of
such employee should be regularized in
terms of Rules, 2001. Therefore, as per
learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner was admittedly discharging his
duties in the month of March, 1991 and he
was
also
discharging
his
duties
on
21.12.2001, therefore, the candidature of
the petitioner was worth to be regularized
in terms of Rules, 2001.

7. However, Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla,
learned Standing Counsel has submitted that
so far as the judgment of this Court in re:
Janardan Yadav (supra) is concerned, he has
nothing to say but the petitioner has not
discharged his duties since May, 1996 till
November, 2000 i.e. more than four years
period and that period may be considered as
artificial break, however, for the remaining
period of service rendered by the petitioner
there are some artificial break.

8. Sri Shukla has further submitted that
however such regularization rules has again
been amended in the year 2016 wherein the
cut off date has been fixed as 21.12.2001,
therefore, the candidature of the petitioner
may be considered under the amended Rules,
2016.

9. Be that as it may, para-8 of the
judgment in re: Janardan Yadav (supra) is
very clearly providing that if any employee
has engaged as a daily wager prior to cut off
date i.e. 29.06.1991 and is serving as daily
wager
on
21.12.2001,
the
date
of
commencement of the Rules, 2001, his
services should have been regularized in
terms of regularization Rules, 2001. For
convenience,
para-8
of
the
aforesaid
judgment is being reproduced here-in-below:-

"8. The said stand is contrary to
the Rules and it amounts to reading certain
words in Rule 4(1) which is not provided
8 All. Durgesh Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
75
therein by the Rule framing authority. The
rule framing authority has not framed the
aforesaid Rules in manner as are being read
by the respondents. Since the Rules are
applicable only to daily wage employees, the
Rules framing authority was 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 Rules. If
a daily wage engagement has been made
before 29.6.2001 and was continuing on
21.12.2001, meaning thereby the daily wage
engagement remained necessity of the
department or the requirement thereof for
more than 10 years, for such a person only,
the benefit of regularization under 2001
Rules has been provided and it nowhere
requires further that the incumbent must have
worked continuously from the date of initial
engagement till the commencement of these
Rules and to read these words would amount
to legislation, which is not permissible in law.
While interpreting the statute, it is well settled
that neither any word shall be added nor be
subtracted but if a plain reading of the statute
is clear and unambiguous, the same has to be
followed as such. 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."

10. It has been not disputed at the bar
that the judgment of this Court in re:
Janardan Yadav (supra) has not been
quashed or modified by the Division Bench
of this Court or by Hon'ble Apex Court,
therefore, that judgment is still a good law
governing the field. Further, the services of
identically placed employees have been
regularized following the decision of this
Court in re: Janardan Yadav (supra),
therefore, on the basis of principles of
parity the services of the petitioner may be
regularized in terms of the directions being
issued in re: Janardan Yadav (supra).

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
25.06.2014, passed by the opposite party
No.3, which is contained as Annexure No.1
to the writ petition, is hereby quashed.

12. A writ in the nature of mandamus
is issued commanding the opposite parties
to regularize the services of the petitioner,
strictly in accordance with law and provide
him all consequential service benefits
which are admissible for regular employees
of the department.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A75
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 6747 of 2021

Durgesh Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Raj Kumar Upadhyaya(R.K.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Kaushalendra Yadav

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Dying in Harness Rules,
1974
-
The
required
condition
for
appropriate post should be fulfilled by the