# Janardan Yadav v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 22
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-12-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38170 of 2005
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/janardan-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40978
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri R.K. Tiwari
S.C.

U.P.
Regularisation
of
Daily
Wages
Appointment on Group 'D' posts Rules
2001-Rule
4
(1)-Regularisation-Daily
wagers appointed prior to 29.6.91 and
continuing
on
21.12.01-entitled
for
Regularisation-provided
possess
minimum
required
qualification
condition of continuous working found
no place in Rules-can not be basis for
denied of Regularisation.

Held: Para 8

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 29.6.1991 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.

## Text

22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

15. CONCLUSION:
We, therefore, hold that:
1. There was sufficient compliance of
section 11 of the National Security Act;
2. A single incident may relate to
disturbance of "public order", as has been
found in the facts of the present case;
3. The subjective satisfaction of the
detaining
authority
has
been
duly
recorded;

16. This Court does not find any
good ground to interfere with the
impugned
order.
In
view
of
the
conclusions, the Habeas Corpus Writ
Petition is thus devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38170 of 2005

Janardan Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Sri D.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Tiwari
S.C.

U.P.
Regularisation
of
Daily
Wages
Appointment on Group 'D' posts Rules
2001-Rule
4
(1)-Regularisation-Daily
wagers appointed prior to 29.6.91 and
continuing
on
21.12.01-entitled
for
Regularisation-provided
possess
minimum
required
qualification
condition of continuous working found
no place in Rules-can not be basis for
denied of Regularisation.

Held: Para 8

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 29.6.1991 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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri D.K. Tripathi, holding
brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned
standing
counsel
for
the
respondents.
1 All] Janardan Yadav V. State of U.P. and others
23
2. The facts in brief are that the
petitioner was engaged as a daily wage
Class-IV employee in Forest Department
in July 1984 and has been continuing. On
the
promulgation
of
Rules,
"U.P.
Regularization
of
Daily
Wages
Appointment on Group ''D' Posts Rules,
2001" (hereinafter referred to as ''Rules
2001') his matter was considered for
regularization by the competent authority
but vide impugned order dated 10.9.2004,
his claim for regularization has been
rejected on the ground that in the year
1993-94, 98, 99, 2000 and 2001, he
worked for certain period which did not
amount to continuous working in service
throughout though under Rules 2001 he
was required to work continuously.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the impugned order is totally
illegal and has misapplied Rule 2001
inasmuch the only requirement to attract
regularization under Rules 2001 are those
conditions as provided under Rule 4(1),
but the respondents in rejecting the claim
of the petitioner have incorporated a
condition which did not exist in the said
Rules.

4. The respondents have filed
counter affidavit wherein the facts as
stated are not disputed, but it is said for
the purpose of attracting regularization
under Rules 2001, one must have worked
continuously throughout and the only
break permissible is holidays and not
otherwise. In this view of the matter, it is
said that the claim of the petitioner has
rightly been rejected.

5. Since the facts are not is dispute
and it is also not disputed that the
petitioner was engaged on daily wage
basis in 1984, i.e., before 29.6.1991 and
was also working on the date of
commencement of Rules 2001, i.e., on
21.12.2001, thus it is evident that he was
entitled
to
be
considered
for
regularization under the said Rules. The
only question up for consideration is
whether the said Rules require continuous
service throughout, i.e., from the date of
initial engagement till the commencement
of the Rules. In my view, there is no such
requirement under the Rules as is
apparent from perusal thereof. Rule 4(1)
of Rules 2001 is reproduced as under:

"4.
Regularisation
of
daily
wages
appointments on Group ''D' posts.- (1)
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."

6. The only requirement under Rule
4(1)(a) are that the incumbent was
directly appointed on daily wage basis on
a Group 'D' Post in a Government Service
before 29.6.1991 and is continuing in
service
as
such
on
the
date
of
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
commencement of the said Rules. The
further requirement under Clause (b) of
Rule 4(1) is that he must have possessed
requisite qualification required for regular
appointment on that post at the time of
such employment on daily wage basis.

7. Respondents have not disputed
the existence of all the said three
conditions but their further presumption is
that
the
Rules
also
contemplate
continuous service throughout from the
date of initial engagement till the date of
commencement of the Rules and only
then a person appointed on daily wage
basis would be entitled for regularization.
It is also the stand of the respondents,
which is evident from para-20 of the
counter affidavit, which reads as under:

"20. That the contents of para 23 of
the writ petition is not correct and denied.
As stated the petitioner is continuously
working relates to, the working of a daily
wager without any break as there is no
break mentioned in the regularization
rules. The petitioner or a daily wager has
to work through out year except on the
national holiday."

8. The said stand is contrary to the
Rules and it amounts to reading certain
words in Rule 4 (1) which is not provided
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
29.6.1991
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.

9. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order 10.9.2004, Annexure-5 to the writ
petition, is quashed. The respondents are
directed to re-consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization in accordance
with 2001 Rules and the observations
made hereinabove, afresh, and pass
appropriate order within three months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.
---------
1 All] Krishna Kumar Sharma V. State of U.P. and others
25
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54573 of 2007

Krishna Kumar Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.K. Chand
S.C.

Constitution of India-Art. 226-Seniorityappointment on adhoc/Temporary basiswithout following the procedure for
appointment-subsequently
regularizedwhether the period of working prior to
regularized be counted for determining
the seniority?-held-'No' as per dictum of
Full Bench decision.

Held: Para 9

The
criteria
for
determination
of
seniority in accordance with the U.P.
Government
Service
Seniority
Rules,
1991 is from the date of-substantive
appointment. The date of substantive
appointment of the petitioner has rightly
been treated as 8th January, 1981 after
his regularisation in services, which does
not suffer from any error.
Case law discussed:
(1990) 2 S.C.C. 715, (2000) 8 S.C.C. 25,
2005(1) E.S.C. 161

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K
Chand, learned standing counsel.

2. By this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for a writ of
certiorari quashing the order dated 8th
March, 2007 passed by the Additional
Director of Education (Madhyamik),
Uttar Pradesh rejecting the representation
of the petitioner dated 6th October, 2004
claiming addition of period of his ad-hoc
appointment from 8.1.1975 till 7th April,
1981 for seniority. A writ of mandamus
has also been sought commanding the
respondents to prepare a fresh seniority
list computing the seniority of the
petitioner from the date of initial joining,
i.e., with effect from 8th January, 1975.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding
the writ petition are; the petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T.
Grade) in Government Inter College,
Arakot (Uttarkashi) on temporary basis by
order of the Director of Education dated
24th December, 1974 in pursuance of
which he joined on 8th January, 1975 as
Assistant Teacher. Petitioner's services
were regularised by an order dated 8th
April, 1981 in accordance with the
provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointment (On Posts within the
purview
of
the
Public
Service
Commission)
Rules,
1979.
His
substantive appointment has been treated
with effect from 8th April, 1981 and on
that basis he has also been granted
promotion on the post of lecturer. The
petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ
Petition No.14553 of 2005 claiming
seniority from 8th January, 1975, which
was disposed of by this Court vide its
order dated 8th December, 2006. In
pursuance of the order of this Court, the
Additional Director of Education rejected
the representation taking the view that
petitioner was working only on ad-hoc
basis as L.T. Grade Teacher from