# Bhairav Nath Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 405
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-01
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 38333 of 2016
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhairav-nath-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52337
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Regularization of Guest
Lecturers
in
Government
Industrial
Training Institutes - U.P. Government
Industrial Training Institute (Instructors)
Service Rules, 2014 - The Uttar Pradesh
Regularization of Persons Working On
Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On
Contract in Government Departments On
Group-C and Group-D posts (Outside The
Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission) Rules, 2016 - For
regularization, it is essential for the
petitioners to establish that they have a
right for regularization in service under
any Rule, which provides regularization of
such appointees who have been engaged
under a particular scheme for a particular
period
-
Government
Order
dated
24.02.2016 and Rules of 2016 apply to
daily wage employees, including Guest
Lecturers. (Para - 14, 20,21,23,24,25)

Petitioners worked as Guest Lecturers in
Government Industrial Training Institutes -
Claimed regularization under Government Order
dated 24.02.2016 and Rules of 2016 - Orders
rejecting regularization challenged. (Para - 1 to
21)

HELD: - Petitioners entitled to consideration for
regularization under Government Order dated
24.02.2016 and Rules of 2016. Impugned
orders quashed. Fresh orders to be passed
within three months.(Para - 25,27,28)

Petitions allowed. (E-7)

## Text

8 All. Bhairav Nath Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
405
service of a workman giving one month's
notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry
offended Article 14. The order terminating
the service of the employees was set aside."

40. For aforesaid consideration and
discussions,
impugned
order
dated
11.05.2016 is hereby quashed by issuance of
a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further
writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued
commanding the opposite parties to ensure
payment of Family Pension to petitioner as
provided vide order dated 03.09.2007 and in
continuation thereof. Actual payment thereof
and regular payment thereafter shall be
ensured within a period of eight weeks from
the date a certified copy of this order is
served upon opposite party no.2.

41. Resultantly, the petition succeeds
and is allowed. Parties to bear their own
costs.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 405
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No. 38333 of 2016
With
Other Connected Cases

Bhairav Nath Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Kartikeya Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Service Law - Regularization of Guest
Lecturers
in
Government
Industrial
Training Institutes - U.P. Government
Industrial Training Institute (Instructors)
Service Rules, 2014 - The Uttar Pradesh
Regularization of Persons Working On
Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On
Contract in Government Departments On
Group-C and Group-D posts (Outside The
Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission) Rules, 2016 - For
regularization, it is essential for the
petitioners to establish that they have a
right for regularization in service under
any Rule, which provides regularization of
such appointees who have been engaged
under a particular scheme for a particular
period
-
Government
Order
dated
24.02.2016 and Rules of 2016 apply to
daily wage employees, including Guest
Lecturers. (Para - 14, 20,21,23,24,25)

Petitioners worked as Guest Lecturers in
Government Industrial Training Institutes -
Claimed regularization under Government Order
dated 24.02.2016 and Rules of 2016 - Orders
rejecting regularization challenged. (Para - 1 to
21)

HELD: - Petitioners entitled to consideration for
regularization under Government Order dated
24.02.2016 and Rules of 2016. Impugned
orders quashed. Fresh orders to be passed
within three months.(Para - 25,27,28)

Petitions allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ujjawal Satsangi
Advocate,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners in Writ A No.8507 of 2024 and
he is holding brief of Shri Kartikeya Saran,
learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ
A Nos.38333 of 2016, 40833 of 2016,
44315 of 2016 & 51565 of 2016 and Smt.
Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents.

2. All the aforesaid five writ petitions
have been filed by the petitioners, who are
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
working as Guest Lecturer in various
Government Industrial Training Institutes
in the State of U.P. and who are aggrieved
by non-regularization of their services.

3. Writ-A No.38333 of 2016 has been
filed by four petitioners challenging the
validity of an order dated 24.05.2016
passed
by
the
Secretary,
Vocational
Education
and
Skill
Development
Department, Government of U.P., rejecting
their claim for regularization of their
services as Guest Lecturers in Government
Industrial Training Institutes.

4. Writ-A No.40833 of 2016 has been
filed by ten petitioners challenging the
validity
of
a
similar
order
dated
13.06.2016,
rejecting
claim
of
regularization of the petitioners' services as
Guest Lecturers in Government Industrial
Training Institutes.

5. Writ A No.44315 of 2016 has been
filed by 16 petitioners challenging validity
of orders dated 24.5.2016 and 23.06.2016
passed
by
the
Secretary,
Vocational
Education
and
Skill
Development
Department, State of U.P., rejecting their
claim for regularization.

6. Writ-A No.51565 of 2016 and Writ
A No.8507 of 2024 have been filed by 15
petitioners and 8 petitioners respectively,
praying for regularization of their services
as they have not been considered for
regularization and no orders in this regard
has been passed.

7. As common questions are involved
in all the writ petitions, the writ petitions
are being decided by a common judgment.

8. Briefly stated, facts of the case are
that various posts of Instructors were lying
vacant in various Government Industrial
Training Institutes and, therefore, the
Government had launched a Prashikshan
Mitra Scheme for appointing Prashikshan
Mitra
for
performing
the
duties
of
Instructors
in
Government
Industrial
Training
Institutes
by
issuing
a
Government
Order
dated
30.08.2000,
which provided that Prashikshan Mitra
shall
be
appointed
in
Government
Industrial Training Institutes upon payment
of a remuneration of Rs.100/- per day. The
Scheme would be for the financial year
2000-2001 whereafter the Scheme will
come to an end automatically.

9. After completion of the Scheme
period i.e. 2000-2001, another Government
Order
dated
30.05.2001
was
issued
providing
for
appointment
of
Guest
Speakers
in
Government
Industrial
Training Institutes to perform the duties of
Instructors as the posts of Instructors were
lying vacant. This Government Order
provided that the Guest Lecturers will be
appointed for the period 2001-2002.

10. Even after expiry of the scheme,
the petitioners continued to work as Guest
Speakers
in
Government
Industrial
Training Institutes and performed the duties
of Instructors thereof. The remuneration
being
paid
to
the
petitioners
was
subsequently enhanced to Rs.300/- per day.
It is the case of the petitioners that besides
their educational duties relatable to the post
of
Instructors,
they
are
assigned
administrative duties also like other regular
teachers of Government Industrial Training
Institutes.

11. On 24.02.2016, a Government
Order was issued for regularization of
persons
working
in
Government
Departments,
Autonomous
Institutions,
8 All. Bhairav Nath Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
407
Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations,
Local Bodies Development Authorities and
District Panchayats, who were working
since 31.03.1996 on daily wages/work
charge and contract basis and who held the
minimum eligibility qualification for the
post in question, on available vacancies and
in case of non-availability of vacancies, on
supernumerary posts.

12. The Government Order dated
24.02.2016 has been replaced by the "The
Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons
Working On Daily Wages or On Work Charge
or On Contract in Government Departments
On Group-C and Group-D posts (Outside The
Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission)
Rules,
2016"
(hereinafter
referred to as Rules of 2016). The exclusion
Clause in the Rules of 2016 is Clause 2, which
provides that:-

"2. These rules shall not apply
for regularisation of :

(i)
Seasonal
Collection
Ameen/Seasonal Peon;

(ii)
Persons/Persons
engaged/employed/deployed for seasonal
works
in
Horticulture
Department,
Agriculture
Department,
Agriculture
Education Department and such similar
Departments;

(iii)
Person/Persons
engaged/employed/deployed
on
consolidated pay/ fixed honorarium in the
schemes/projects of State Government or
Government
of
India
sponsored
programmes;

(iv)
Person/Persons
engaged/employed/deployed
as
Home
Guard Volunteer and Prantiya Rakshak
Dal Volunteer;

(v)
Person/Persons
engaged/employed/deployed
as
Shiksha
Mitra and Kisan Mitra;

(vi)
Person/Persons
engaged/employed/deployed
under
MNREGA Scheme (Rural Development
Department);

(vii)
Person/Persons
engaged/employed/deployed in Anganbadi
Kendra
(Women
and
Child
Welfare
Department);

(viii)
Person/Persons
engaged/employed/deployed as Asha Bahu
(Medical, Health and Family Welfare
Department);

(ix)
Such
person/persons
or
group of persons as notified by the State
Government from time to time."

13. The petitioners applied for their
regularization, some of which claims have
been rejected by different orders passed in
their cases which are under challenge in
three writ petitions. Their claim has been
rejected on the same ground that the
petitioners
are
not
covered
by
the
Government Order dated 24.02.2016 and,
therefore,
their
services
cannot
be
regularized.

14. The impugned order states that the
Government Order dated 24.02.2016 is not
applicable
to
Guest
Lecturers
and,
therefore, the petitioners are not covered by
the provisions of the aforesaid Government
Order dated 24.02.2016. The Government
Order dated 24.02.2016 excludes persons
working as Seasonal Collection Ameen /
Seasonal Anu Sewak in Horticulture
Department / Agriculture Department /
Agriculture Education Department for
carrying
of
seasonal
works,
persons
engaged in MNREGA / Anganwadi work /
Asha Bahu / Home Guard Volunteers /
P.R.D. Volunteers / Shiksha Mitra / Kisan
Mitra or persons engaged on payment of
honorarium or other basis under any
Scheme of the Central Government / State
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government and the exclusion cause does
not make any reference to persons working
as Guest Lecturers.

15. In the counter affidavit, the
respondents have stated that the services of
Guest Speakers were being availed as a
time being arrangement according to the
provisions of U. P. Government Industrial
Training Institute (Instructors) Service
Rules, 2014 and they were not entitled to
work on the post of Instructors. The Guest
Lecturers were appointed to work till
regularly appointed Instructors joined the
post.

16. The stand of the respondents in the
counter affidavit is that the Government
Order dated 24.02.2016 was issued regarding
daily wager / work charge employees and
Contractual Employees only and Prashikshan
Mitra are excluded from the purview of
Government Order dated 24.02.2016 by
virtue of the provision contained in Clause 3
of the aforesaid Government Order.

17. Smt. Archana Tyagi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel has
further submitted that similar claims were
raised before this Court sitting at Lucknow by
filing numerous writ petitions, the leading
case being Writ Petition No.6565 (S/S) of
2001 and all the writ petitions were dismissed
by means of a judgment and order dated
05.03.2003,
whereby
the
claim
of
regularization of persons working as Guest
Speakers in Government Industrial Training
Institutes was rejected. Submission of learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that the
aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court is binding on this Court.

18. Another judgment and order dated
10.01.2008 was passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court sitting at Lucknow in
Writ Petition No.5676 (S/S) of 2007 and
other connected matters holding that Guest
Speakers cannot stop the regularly selected
candidates from joining on their post but
they can be allowed to work on vacant
posts till regular selection is made.

19. The petitioners were engaged as
Guest Speakers on daily wage basis and,
therefore, they are daily wage employees.
The petitioners can only be excluded from
the purview of the Government Order dated
24.02.2016, if they fall in any of the
categories mentioned in the exclusion
Clause No.3 of the aforesaid Government
Order but the petitioners do not fall in any
such category. Therefore, the contention of
the respondents that the Guest Speakers are
not covered by the aforesaid Government
Order, is not correct.

20. So far as the judgment dated
05.03.2003
passed
in
Writ
Petition
No.6565 (S/S) of 2001 and other connected
matters is considered, those writ petitions
were dismissed for the following reasons:-

"For
regularization,
it
is
essential for the petitioners to establish that
they have a right for regularization in
service under any Rule, which provides
regularization of such appointees who have
been engaged under a particular scheme
for a particular period. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has not been able to show
any
such
Rule
which
provides
for
regularization of such appointees. The
State Government has also not framed any
such scheme where the Guest Speakers,
who are working under the Scheme of
2000-2001, are entitled for regularization.
In the absence of any such Scheme of the
State Government and also in the absence
of
any
such
statutory
rule
for
regularization, which may be applicable to
8 All. Bhairav Nath Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
409
the petitioners and the like Guest Speakers,
the petitioners cannot claim regularization
on the post of Instructor."

21. After passing of the aforesaid
judgment in the year 2003, the State
Government has issued the Government
Order dated 24.02.2016 for regularization
of
services
of
persons
working
in
Government Departments, Autonomous
Bodies, Public Sector Undertakings /
Corporation, Local Bodies, Development
Authorities and District Panchayats and
thereafter the Government has framed the
Rules of 2016. Therefore, the ground on
which the earlier writ petitions were
dismissed in the year 2003, i.e. the
petitioner has not been able to show any
such Rule which provides for regularization
of such appointees, has ceased to exist after
issuance of the Government Order dated
24.02.2016 and now their claim cannot be
rejected on the basis of the judgment dated
05.03.2003
passed
in
Writ
Petition
No.6565 (S/S) of 2001 and it has to be
considered in light of the Rules of 2016.

22. From the aforesaid averments
made in the counter affidavit, it appears
that the respondents admit that the Guest
Lecturers were appointed to perform the
duties of Instructor according to the
provisions contained in U.P. Government
Industrial Training Institute (Instructors)
Service Rules, 2014.

23. The learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has submitted that Rule 2
(iii) of the Rules of 2016 provides that the
rules shall not apply for regularization of
persons/persons
engaged/employed/
deployed on consolidated pay/ fixed
honorarium in the Schemes/projects of
State Government or Government of India
sponsored programmes.

24. In this regard, it is apparent from
the record that initially by means of an
order
dated
30.08.2000,
the
State
Government had launched Prashikshan
Mitra Scheme under which the petitioners
were appointed as Prashikshan Mitra,
which Scheme was for a period of one year
only i.e. 2000-2001 and it came to end
thereafter. Then the State Government
issued another Government Order dated
30.05.2001 for engagement of Guest
Lecturers for a period of one year. This
Scheme of engagement of Guest Lecturers
was extended by means of a Government
Order dated 10.05.2002 to the period
ending on 30.06.2002. Thereafter this
Scheme has not been extended. Therefore,
when the petitioners are not working under
any Scheme since 01.07.2002 and they do
not fall within the exception carved out
within Rule 2 (iii) of Rules of 2016.

25. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioners claim for being
considered for regularization of their
services under the Government Order dated
24.2.2016 / the Rules of 2016 has wrongly
been rejected on the ground that they are
not covered by the Government Order. The
petitioners are entitled to be considered for
being regularized under the provisions of
Government Order dated 24.2.2016 / the
Rules of 2016.

26. Accordingly, all the writ
petitions bearing Writ- A No.38333 of
2016, Writ- A No.40833 of 2016, Writ-A
No.44315 of 2016, Writ- A No.51565 of
2016 and Writ- A No.8507 of 2024 are
hereby allowed.

27. The impugned order dated
24.05.2016 in Writ A No.38333 of 2016,
order dated 13.6.2016 in Writ-A No.40833
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of 2016 and orders dated 24.5.2016 and
23.06.2016 in Writ- A No.8507 of 2024
passed
by
the
Secretary,
Vocational
Education
and
Skill
Development
Department, State of U.P. are unsustainable
in law and are hereby quashed.

28. A mandamus is issued to the
respondent No.1- Secretary, Vocational
Education and Skill Development, State of
U.P. to pass fresh orders regarding
regularization of services of the petitioners,
after taking into consideration the merit of
the claim of each individual petitioner,
within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. Till a final order is passed in the
matter, the petitioners shall be allowed to
continue to remain in service and will be
paid their salaries regularly.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 410
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 21 of 2021

M/S Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.
 ...Revisionist
Versus
Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.
Lko ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Rishabh Pandey, Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008
- Section 59 - Revisionist is engaged in
manufacture of sugar - Controversy raised
to purchase of diesel at concessional rate
of
tax
as
per
Notification
of
St.
Government
dated
10.08.2017
-
Concession couldn't be availed due to
want of certificate of Commissioner as
prescribed therein - Application filed
before Commissioner - Rejected - Appeal -
Commercial Tax Tribunal upheld the order
of
Commissioner,
appeal
rejected
-
Impugned order - Held, transportation of
sugarcane from Cane Purchase Centre to
factory premises depicts 'manufacture' of
sugar - Notification dated 07.12.2019
related to manufacture of sugar after
purchasing sugarcane from farmers and
transported from Cane Purchase Centre to
Factory Gate, while Notification dated
10.08.2017, provides concessional rate of
tax to all industrial units for the purpose
of manufacture of taxable goods - If
revisionist has received benefit under
Notification dated 07.12.2019, he can't be
denied
under
Notification
dated
10.08.2017 - In absence of any restrictive
clause in Notification dated 10.08.2017,
the Tribunal and Commissioner had erred
in interpreting the Notification dated
10.08.2017 in its application to sugar
manufacturing units - Thus, entitled to
benefit
for
purchase
of
diesel
at
concessional rate of tax. (Para 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
12, 17, 18, 19)

Revision is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd Vs
Commissioner Trade Tax, (Sales/Trade Tax
Revision No. 1496 of 2004)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Sanjay
Sarin,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
respondents.

2. By means of present revision, the
revisionist has challenged the judgment of
the Full Bench of the Commercial Tax
Tribunal dated 25.02.2021 passed in