# Jamuna Prasad Nigam & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1624
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-07
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 58564 of 2009
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jamuna-prasad-nigam-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54382
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

1624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. The order passed by the Committee pursuant to which the corpus has been sent to
Children's Home is a judicial order and hence the detention of corpus cannot be termed to be illegal.
Moreover, the order passed by the Committee is appealable. Thus, the instant Habeas Corpus Petition being
not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.

30.***

31. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the legal position which emerges is that in a case
where the custody of the petitioner corpus has been handed over as per the order passed by the 'Child
Welfare Committee', constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the said order cannot be assailed in
a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus." (emphasis supplied)

7. The Apex Court in the case of Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh and Others (2024) 10 SCC 595, held that
in matters of child custody, a writ of habeas corpus would ordinarily not be maintainable when an efficacious
alternative remedy is available. Such a writ would lie only where the detention of the child is illegal,
unauthorized, and contrary to the welfare and best interests of the child. The relevant extract is reproduced as
under:

"23. It can thus be seen that this Court in Tejaswini Gaud case [Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar
Jagdish Prasad Tewari, (2019) 7 SCC 42 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 433] has held that the habeas corpus is a
prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy. It has been held that recourse to such a remedy should
not be permitted unless the ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective. It
has been held that in child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified
only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. It has
further been held that in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is
proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of
law." (emphasis supplied)

8. It is apparent that, as the corpus is in lawful custody of the State pursuant to judicial order passed by
the Child Welfare Committee, Sambhal on 18.12.2025 under Section 27(9) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the instant habeas corpus petition is not legally maintainable.

9. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1624
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 58564 of 2009

Jamuna Prasad Nigam & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
4 All. Jamuna Prasad Nigam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1625
Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether there was any seniority list of Awazdar and whether some Awazdar were regularized or not?
(b) Whether the petitioners were paid salary for only 10 days, even after working for 30 days?
(c) Whether casual substitute workers (Awazdars) who are engaged sporadically for up to 10 days a month to
fill temporary absences qualify as 'directly appointed daily wagers' under the U.P. Regularization Rules, 2001?

Headnotes
A. Labour Law - In 2009, five petitioners filed a writ petition claiming they had been working since 1990 as
Awazdar employees (daily-wage substitutes) to perform the duties of a Switchman whenever a regular
employee was absent. The petitioners alleged that although they worked all 30 days of a month, they were
paid for only 10 days. They also claimed that Kanpur Nagar Nigam had prepared a seniority list of Awazdars in
1994, but the department had used a "pick and choose" policy to regularize their juniors while ignoring the
petitioners' seniority.

The petitioners had previously approached the High Court in 2003 and 2006. The Court had directed the
authorities to consider their cases for regularization under the U.P. Daily Wage Employees (Regularization of
Group 'D' Post) Rules, 2001. In compliance with those orders, Kanpur Nagar Nigam evaluated their claims and
issued an order on 02.02.2009, rejecting their regularization. The department found that they had only
worked a maximum of 10 days a month as substitutes, never completed the mandatory 240 days of service in
a year, and were not working against any legally sanctioned, substantive posts. The petitioners challenged
this 2009 rejection order.

B. Petitioners have only made an averment in the writ petition in regard to regularization of
some Awazdar, but have not placed any document on record to support it, whereas contesting
respondents i.e. Nagar Nigam Kanpur has placed appointment letters of private respondents, and for
reference appointment letter of respondent no. 9 (Subhash Chandra s/o Munir) is taken note of that he was
appointed vide an appointment letter dated 12.01.2000, against a recruitment process through a Selection
Committee being a fresh appointment against vacant post of Switchman due to death or retirement of
substantive appointee or Switchman, therefore claim of petitioners that private respondents were regularized
being working as Awazdar treating them as a daily wager is contrary to records. No contrary record was
placed on record by the petitioner. (Para 14)

Kanpur Nagar Nigam had conducted a special drive to appoint Switchman under a category of OBC also,
therefore, some appointments were made through special drive in due process and not from any alleged
seniority list. (Para 16)

C. Referred documents though was named as a seniority list, but it was not a seniority list for the
purpose of regularization and was not prepared under any provision of law, rather it was a list
only for purpose to call Awazdar for work in absence of regular Switchman in a chronical manner
as well as that it was never considered as a Seniority List for purpose of regularization and therefore, an
argument that seniority list was prepared for purpose of regularization is not correct. No service rule is
placed on record by the petitioners to show that purported seniority list has statutory backup.
Respective appointment letters of private respondents are also not challenge either. (Para 15)

D. Petitioners' claim that they have worked for 30 days, but salary was paid for only 10 days,
cannot be accepted since it not only remains a very vague claim which has been specifically
denied by the respondents. (Para 19)

E. Since the petitioners were never directly appointed on daily wages on any Group 'D' post,
rather they were working for few days when regularly appointed Switchman was absent as
Awazdar, therefore, they would not fall within the definition of daily wager, required for
consideration under 'Rules 2001' therefore, also no case of regularization is made out. (Para 21)
1626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
'Rules, 2001' provides that any person who- (a) was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group 'D'
post in the Government service before 29.06.1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of
commencement of these rules; and (b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment
for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be
considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group D post,
on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular
appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. (Para 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Mohd. Sagir Vs. Nagar Nigam Kanpur, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 473 (Para 22)

List of Acts
 U.P. Daily Wage Employees (Regularization of Group 'D' Post) Rules, 2001.

List of Keywords
 daily wager, seniority, regularized, service, substitute worker, temporary, awazdar.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Daya Shankar Singh, Shailendra
For Respondent(s): Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, Anil Tiwari, C.S.C., Chandan Sharma, Munna Pandey,
Yashwant Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri. Daya Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2, and Sri
Yashwant Singh, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Present writ petition was filed in the year 2009 and no interim order was
granted and finally it is decided after more than 17 years by present judgment.

3. Petitioners, five in numbers have approached this Court in the year 2009 that
they were working since 1990 as Awazdar Karmchari, (एवजदार) on daily wage to
undertake work of a Switch Man, in absence of regular Switchman.

4. It was further case of petitioners that though they worked for 30 days in a
month, but were paid salary for only of 10 days, though said assertion remained
without any supportive material as well as why any objection was not taken during
last 19 years.

5. It was further case of petitioners that respondent Kanpur Nagar Nigam had
prepared a seniority list of 'Awazdar', but respondents have adopted a pick and
choose policy to regularize junior Awazdars, ignoring petitioners despite senior in
said list.
4 All. Jamuna Prasad Nigam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1627

6. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners have earlier approached this Court
when respondents were contemplating for a recruitment process for appointment of
Switchman against vacant posts that before any such recruitment process commenced,
petitioners' case for regularization be considered in terms of Government Order dated
10.7.2003 read with U.P. Daily Wage Employees (Regularization of Group 'D' Post)
Rules, 2001 (in brief 'Rules, 2001').

7. The Writ Petition No.28786 of 2003, filed earlier by similarly situated persons
was disposed of vide an order dated 14.8.2003. Subsequently, another Writ Petition
No.15292 of 2006 was filed which was also disposed of vide an order dated 21.3.2006
with a direction that cases of petitioners and others, be considered for regularization
in terms of aforesaid 'Rules 2001'.

8. In pursuance of above referred orders, cases of petitioners and others were
considered, however, their respective claim for regularization was rejected on a
ground that they do not fall within ambit of 'Rules, 2001' and they have worked as
daily wagers for not more than 10 days in a month and accordingly have not worked
for 240 days in a year and therefore, they were not 'daily wagers'. It was also
mentioned that no seniority list in terms of any service rules was prepared for
Awazdars and no procedure was undertaken to regularize any Awazdar independently
or from purported list. No Awazdar was appointed against any substantive post. For
reference, relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter:

"मैंने उपलब्ि अवभलेखों, शासनादेशों एवं सेवावनयमों का परीक्षर् वकया और पाया वक वनसार अहमद व अन्य 9
याचीगर्ों द्वारा मागज प्रकाश ववभाग, नगर वनगम, कानपुर में एवजदार के रूप में प्रत्येक माह में अविकतम 10 वदन तक ही कायज वकया
है वजसका भुगतान वकया जा चुका है। याचीगर्ों ने कभी भी लगातार एक माह भी कायज नहीं वकया और प्रत्येक वर्ज में कभी भी 240
वदन कायज नहीं वकया और याचीगर्ों द्वारा मागज प्रकाश ववभाग नगर वनगम में कभी भी दैवनक वेतन पर कायज नहीं वकया गया है। इसवलए
याचीगर् U.P. Daily wage Employees (Regularization on Group D. Posts) Rules 2001 की
पररवि में नहीं आते हैं। वजसमें यह वनदेश वदये गये हैं वक श्रवमक ने 29 जून, 1991 से वनरन्तर 2001 तक दैवनक वेतन में कायज कर
रहा हो और प्रत्येक वर्ज 240 वदन कायज वकया हो उसी दैवनक वेतन भोगी कमजचारी को वनयवमत करने हेतु उक्त वनयमावली लागू होगी
साथ ही साथ यह भी उल्लेखनीय है वक याचीगर्ों से अलग-अलग अववि में एवजदार के रूप में कायज वलया गया और उस कायज का
वनिाजररत पाररश्रवमक का भुगतान वकया जा चुका है। उिर प्रदेश नगर महापावलका सेवावनयमावली के अिीन नगर वनगम में एवजदार का
कोई पद सृवजत नहीं है और न ही उसके द्वारा कवथत पद पर कायज वकया गया है। सेवावनयमावली में वववनवदजष्ट तथा नगर वनगम द्वारा
सृवजत एवं वनयमानुकूल चयन प्रवक्रयाओं के अिीन वनयुक्त कमजचारी को ज्येष्ठता सूची तैयार की जाती है। इस प्रकार एवजदारी की न तो
वनयमानुकूल वररष्ठता सूची तैयार की गयी और न ही अवभकवथत प्रकार से वररष्ठता सूची में याचीगर्ों का नाम अंवकत है। एवजदारी का
कोई पद न होने के कारर् उनकी वररष्ठता सूची तैयार वकये जाने का वनयमतुः प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता है। इस सम्बन्ि में मा० उच्चतम
न्यायालय द्वारा स्टेट ऑफ कनाजटक बनाम उमादेवी नामक ववशेर् अनुमवत यावचका में प्रवतपावदत वसद्धान्तों एवं वनर्जय के अनुसार यह
प्रकरर् प्रथम दृष्टया पोर्र्ीय नहीं है। ऐसी वस्थवत में याचीगर्ों द्वारा वदया गया प्रत्यावेदन वनयमानुसार ग्राह्य न होने के कारर् वनरस्त
वकया जाता है। तद्नुसार याचीगर्ों को सूवचत वकया जाय।" (Emphasis supplied)

9. Above referred order dated 2.2.2009 was under challenge in the present writ
petition, by petitioner's who are 5 in numbers.
1628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Admittedly, petitioners have not worked after 2006 and no interim order was
granted in the present writ petition, therefore it would be a major adverse factor even
if petitioners make out a case that they can be considered for regularization.

11. In the present case pleadings were exchanged and this Court has passed
several orders for filing affidavits for providing relevant informations such as
seniority list, manner of regularization, manner of selections etc. For reference,
relevant orders being orders dated 3.11.2025, 19.11.2025 and 3.12.2025 are
reproduced hereinafter:

Order dated 03.11.2025

"Heard Mr. Daya Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are five
in number, were appointed as Awazdar/Switchman (Daily Wager) in the respondents?
department in the year 1990 for the purpose of regularization, as required under law.
A seniority list was subsequently prepared by the department in the year 1994,
wherein petitioner no.1 was placed at serial no.74 with the date of registration as
25.09.1990; petitioner no.2 at serial no.72, registered on 10.08.1990; petitioner no.3
at serial no.27, registered on 01.06.1987; petitioner no.4 at serial no.31, registered
on 12.12.1987; and petitioner no.5 at serial no.52, registered on 10.05.1990.

When the persons junior to the petitioners were regularized, the petitioners
approached this Court by filing a writ petition, wherein a direction was issued to the
authorities concerned to consider the grievance of the petitioners. The names of the
juniors who were regularized have been mentioned as Kamal Kumar, Rakesh Kumar,
Ramesh Chandra, Daya Ram, Subhash Chandra, Pradeep Kumar, Kishan Lal, Jagdish
Kannojia, Rajendra Kumar, Lalji Ram, Tamas, Sarju Prasad, Kuldeep, Arun Kumar,
Kripa Shanker, Ramesh Chandra, and Shailendra Singh.

Pursuant to the order passed by the writ Court, the petitioners submitted
representations before the authorities concerned, however, without passing any
orders on the said representations, the respondents prepared two seniority lists, one
comprising those who were permitted to continue as daily wagers in the department,
and the other consisting of those who were stopped from performing their duties after
filing of the earlier writ petition. The respondents, thereafter, have passed the
impugned order without considering the fact that although the petitioners were
permitted to work as daily wagers for 30 days but payment was made only for 10
days, showing it merely as an arrangement to fill in for any Switchman who was
absent for any reason. Despite this, it has been stated that the petitioners were not
working as daily wagers.

On a specific query as raised by the Court to learned counsel for the
respondents, as to how it can be said that the petitioners were not working as daily
wagers when in the first seniority list as issued in the year 1994 their names find
place and persons from the same list have already been regularized.

To the aforesaid, Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents, requests for two weeks' time to obtain instructions in the matter.
4 All. Jamuna Prasad Nigam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1629

List on 19.11.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a mention for the
matter to be taken up on the said date.

Order dated 19.11.2025

In compliance of order dated 03.11.2025, a supplementary counter affidavit has
been filed, which does not mention the details of the juniors who were regularized,
nor the category in which such regularization was made. It also does not contain any
list showing the names of the persons whose cases were placed for consideration of
regularization.

This Court finds that the instructions on the basis of which supplementary
counter affidavit has been filed is not proper.

In these circumstances, respondent no.2, Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, is
directed to remain present before this Court along with the entire records and to file
an affidavit in respect of the aforesaid issues.

List on 03.12.2025.

Registrar (Compliance) as well as Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondents shall look into compliance of this order.

Order dated 03.12.2025

In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 19.11.2025, respondent no.2,
Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, namely, Arpit Upadhyaya is present before this
Court and has filed compliance affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record.

Perusal of the compliance affidavit goes to show that though, the appointment
letters of the persons named in the order dated 3.11.2025 have been annexed but the
records pertaining to the Selection Committee and order passed by Mukhya Nagar
Adhikari dated 10.01.2000, explaining the procedure of absorption and the manner of
appointment has not been placed before this Court. Thus, the query of the Court still
remains unanswered.

On the aforesaid, Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Nigam
requests for time to file a better affidavit, explaining the procedure of regularization
as well as how the persons whose appointment letters have been annexed in the
compliance affidavit dated 3.12.2025 have been absorbed.
1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

List this case on 16th December, 2025, for further hearing. In the meantime,
affidavit as prayed may be filed.

An oral request has been made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent-Nagar Nigam to exempt the appearance of the officer concerned, i.e.
respondent no.2, Arpit Upadhyaya-Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur.

The oral request is considered and liberty is granted to the counsel representing
respondent no.2 to file an affidavit of exemption within two hours before the Court.

Ref: Order on Civil Misc. Exemption Application

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 has filed exemption
application at 2:00 pm today, which is kept on record. Office is directed to register
the same.

The appearance of respondent no.2 is exempted until and unless required.

Accordingly, the exemption application stands disposed of."

12. Aforesaid orders were passed on a premise that similarly situated some of the
Awazdars were regularized on basis of a purported seniority list despite being junior.
It was also alleged that some junior Awazdars were regularized and out of them some
were arrayed as private respondents also.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, first issue for consideration is as to whether
there was any seniority list of Awazdar and whether some Awazdar were regularized
or not?

14. Petitioners have only made an averment in the writ petition in regard to
regularization of some Awazdar, but have not placed any document on record to
support it , whereas contesting respondents i.e. Nagar Nigam Kanpur has placed
appointment letters of private respondents, and for reference appointment letter of
respondent no. 9 (Subhash Chandra son of Munir) is taken note of that he was
appointed vide an appointment letter dated 12.1.2000, against a recruitment process
through a Selection Committee being a fresh appointment against vacant post of
Switchman due to death or retirement of substantive appointee or Switchman,
therefore claim of petitioners that private respondents were regularized being working
as Awazdar treating them as a daily wager is contrary to records. No contrary record
was placed on record by the petitioner. For reference, scanned copy as well as typed
copy of appointment letter of Subhash Chandra, (respondent no.9) is pasted
hereinafter:
4 All. Jamuna Prasad Nigam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1631
1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"कानप र नगर तनगम
(कातमसक तवभाग)
पत्राुंक: 1358/व्यय.-39/2000/क तदनाुंक: 12-01-2000
श्री स भाष चन्र,
प त्र श्री काशी राम,
ऐलनगुंज कानप र

उत्तर प्रदेश नगर तनगम अतितनयम 1959 की िारा 106 के अिीन सृतजत एवुं शासन द्वारा स्वीकृत स्वीच मैन के सेवातनवृत्त/मृत्य के ररक्त पदों पर
चयन सतमतत की बैठक तदनाुंक 06-01-2000 को तलए गये तनणसय में उपय क्त पाये जाने के फलस्वरूप चयन सतमतत की अन शुंसा पर म ख्य नगर
अतिकारी के आदेश तदनाुंक 10-01-2000 के अन सार स्वीच मैन के पद पर आपकी अस्थायी तनय तक्त वेतनमान रू० 2750-4400 एवुं देय भत्तों
सतहत तनम्न शतों के अिीन की जाती है :-
1. यह तनय तक्त पूणसतया अस्थायी है जो तकसी भी समय तबना तकसी सूचना के समाि की जा सकती है।
2. इस तनय तक्त के सम्बन्ि में उत्तर प्रदेश नगर तनगम अतितनयम के अन्तगसत बने सेवा सम्बन्िी अतितनयम की सभी िारायें तथा इस सम्बन्ि में बने सभी
तनयम और तवतनयम लागू होंगे।
3. यह अस्थायी तनय तक्त स्वीच मैन के पद पर प्रारतम्भक वेतन रू० 2750-4400 प्रततमाह तथा शासन द्वारा समय-समय पर स्वीकृत महुंगाई एवुं अन्य
भत्तों के साथ की जाती है।
4. मानतसक एवुं शारीररक उपय क्तता के तलए तथा आय तनिासरण के तलए कानप र नगर तनगम के नगर स्वास्थ्य अतिकारी (तचतकत्सा) का प्रमाण-पत्र प्राि
होने पर तनिासररत आय सीमा के अन्तगसत पाये जाने पर शारीररक एवुं मानतसक रूप से उपय क्त पाये जाने पर ही आपकी उपतस्थतत ररपोटस स्वीकार की
जायेगी।
5. उपरोक्त पद का कायसभार सम्भालने के तलए आपकी पदस्थापना मागस प्रकाश तवभाग में की जाती है। अति० अतभयन्ता प्रकाश-4 में उल्लेतखत के
अन सार ही उपतस्थतत ररपोटस स्वीकार करेंगे तथा तलतखत सूचना कातमसक तवभाग को उपलब्ि करायेंगे।
6. आप अपने पद का कायसभार ग्रहण करने के तलए तदनाुंक ... तक उपतस्थतत हों।
7. चररत्र के सम्बन्ि में उस सुंस्था के सवोच्च पदातिकारी का प्रमाण-पत्र तजसमें आपने अन्त में तशक्षा पाई हो या नौकरी की हो अथवा क्षेत्र के तकन्ही ऐसे
दो सुंभ्ाुंत नागररकों के प्रमाण पत्र जो आपसे सम्बतन्ित न हो प्रस्त त करना अतनवायस होगा।
8. यह तनय तक्त तजलातिकारी नगर द्वारा चररत्र सत्यापन के उपरान्त ही अतन्तम समझी जायेगी।
9. जातत के सम्बन्ि में तजलातिकारी से प्राि प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्त त करना होगा।
10. उत्तर प्रदेश नगगर तनगम सेवा तनयमावली 1962 के तनयम -7 के अन सार आपको अपना वैवातहक तस्थतत स्पष्ट करना होगा।
ह० अप०
तनय तक्त प्रातिकारी"

15. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed heavy reliance on a purported seniority list
annexed along with this writ petition and for that contents of affidavit filed on behalf of contesting
respondents as well as submissions of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
Nagar Nigam Kanpur would be relevant that referred documents though was named as a seniority
list, but it was not a seniority list for the purpose of regularization and was not prepared under any
provision of law, rather it was a list only for purpose to call Awazdar for work in absence of regular
Switchman in a chronical manner as well as that it was never considered as a Seniority List for
purpose of regularization and therefore, an argument that seniority list was prepared for purpose of
regularization is not correct. No service rule is placed on record by the petitioners to show that
purported seniority list has statutory backup. Respective appointment letters of private respondents
are also not challenge either.
4 All. Jamuna Prasad Nigam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1633

16. Court also takes note of stand of respondent Kanpur Nagar Nigam that they have
conducted a special drive to appoint Switchman under a category of OBC also, therefore, some
appointments were made through special drive in due process and not from any alleged seniority
list.

17. The facts mentioned in compliance affidavit dated 2.12.2025 remains uncontroverted since
no reply was filed by the petitioners.

18. Only outcome of above discussion would be that very basis of claim of petitioners has no
legs i.e. does not survive either on facts or on law.

19. Another claim of the petitioners that they have worked for 30 days, but salary was paid for
only 10 days, cannot be accepted since it not only remains a very vague claim which has been
specifically denied by the respondents.

20. 'Rules, 2001' provides that any person who- (a) was directly appointed on daily wage
basis on a Group 'D' post in the Government service before June 29. 1991 and is continuing in
service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and

(b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the
time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered
for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group D post,
on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any
regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or
orders.

21. However from the facts referred above, since the petitioners were never directly appointed
on daily wages on any Group 'D' post, rather they were working for few days when regularly
appointed Switchman was absent as Awazdar, therefore, they would not fall within the definition of
daily wages, required for consideration under 'Rules 2001' therefore, also no case of regularization
is made out.

22. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on judgment passed in Mohd. Sagir Vs.
Nagar Nigam Kanpur, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 473, that in similar circumstances, a plea of a
Awazdar was accepted that even he has not worked for 240 days in a year Award was restored,
however, Court finds that in said case, an Award was passed by the Labour Court after considering
the evidence, statement of witnesses etc. and that respondent Kanpur Nagar Nigam failed to
produce records despite summoned, whereas such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in
writ jurisdiction as well as case placed by petitioners was of arbitrariness, which as referred above
does not hold good, therefore, no benefit could be granted of the said judgment.

23. In view of above discussion on facts and law, the Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order, which has assigned legally sustainable reasons.

24. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
----------
1634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 1634
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

Criminall Misc. Review Application Defective No. 6 of 2026

Balwant Singh ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether the order dated 3.12.2025 be reviewed and the writ petition be allowed on the ground that certain
facts namely the filing of the suit and the filing of the writ petition, could not be brought to the notice of this
Court.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226- Review petition against order dated 3.12.2025
passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25002 of 2025- Even if it is ignored that the review
petition has not been filed by the lawyer who had filed and argued the writ petition then also it
is found that the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.11.2025 was not placed before
the Court on 3.12.2025 during the argument in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25002 of 2025Though a suit with regard to permanent injunction was mentioned in the writ petition but
regarding it, no ground was raised at the time of the argument-The civil suit being Original Suit
No.1689 of 2023 has been brought to the notice of the court and this suit which was challenging
a certain will of the father of the petitioner and his brother Yashwant Singh had no bearing to
the present case. Even though various civil suits etc. might have been there in existence but the
main allegation in the FIR was with regard to the fabrication of the signatures by the first
informant of the mother of the petitioner who had died and, therefore, definitely it was a case
where investigation was required and it had to be found out prima facie if the accused in the FIR
was guilty.

Held-The petitioner had availed the remedy of filing an anticipatory bail and, therefore, no interference in the
instant review petition is called for- Review Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. reported in AIR 1997 SC 1005; Civil Misc.
Review Application No.432 of 2023 decided on 31.10.2023; Vinita Bhatnagar vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported in 2018 SCC OnLine All 6411

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Code of Civil Procedure-1908

List of Keywords
Review; Certain facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court; Main allegation in the FIR;
Investigation was required;
Case Arising From