# Prem Jeet and others v. The State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 895
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-06-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28405 of 2003
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-jeet-and-others-v-the-state-of-u-p-others-40226
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 14 and 16-
Regularisation of Service-Kanpur Nagar
Nigam advertised for selection of posts
of class III and class IV employees-
Petitioners claimed for regularization on
the
grounds
that
certain
class
III
employees, similarly situate, appointed
on
consolidated
pay
have
been
regularised-held-wrong decision can not
be basis for claim pirety.

Held- Para 5

From the above discussion, it would thus
follow that the petitioners have no right
to the posts held by them and they
cannot claim regularization merely on
the dint that they have already put in
three years of service on the posts. In
the
instant
case,
the
process
of
recruitment has already commenced by
means of the impugned advertisement.
The petitioners who admittedly were
appointed on a consolidated pay and
they were not selected in the manner in
which regular employees are selected
nor have they been subjected to the
rigours of selection in order to judge
their
compatibility
even
with
the
minimum requirements to hold the posts
and in the circumstances, no argument
of substance has been made to hold
good
the
submissions
that
the
petitioners are entitled to regularization.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Prem Jeet and others V. The State of U.P. and others
895
misfortunes including old age. In the
instant case, the minimum wages being
paid to the petitioners is too exiguous to
meet the basic requirements of the
petitioners and their families considering
the spiraling prices and high cost of
living. Taking all this into reckoning, it
would sub-serve the needs of the
petitioners if they are given minimum of
the pay scales.

20. In the above conspectus, I am
inclined to phrase directions in the
following
words
for
action
and
compliance.

1.
The Nagar Palika Parishads/Nagar
Nigams are directed to process relevant
details and send the list of all such daily
wage employees who were engaged on or
prior to June 29, 1991 and are still
continuing alongwith requisite papers for
creation of posts to the State Government
within a period of two months and the
State Government in its turn shall pass
appropriate orders for creation of posts
within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of the papers. In the case of
those
Nagar
Nigams/Nagar
Palika
Parishads which have already submitted
such lists for creation of post, the State
Government
shall
pass
appropriate
speaking orders in this regard within a
period of six weeks from today.

2.
The
appointing
Authority
after
receipt
of
orders
from
the
State
Government for creation of posts, shall
consider the matter of regularisation
under the provisions of Regularisation
Rules in relation to class 4 daily wage
employees already working in their
service for the period indicated above
within a period not later than six weeks
thereafter
in
accordance
with
the
prescribed procedure and having due
regard to the Government Order dated
10.7.2003.

3.
The Nagar Palika Parishads/ Nagar
Nigam
shall
initiate
action
for
regularisation on the posts already created
and existing taking into reckoning the
reservation policy and no appointment
shall be made upon any of the posts
advertised by the Nagar Nigam/Nagar
Palika Parishad as backlog vacancies for
SC/ST/OBC under the directions of the
State
Government
and
appointment
pursuant to such directions shall remain in
abeyance till such time, all the posts
created and existing are utilized in
regularisation of daily wage employees
working
in
respective
Nagar
Nigam/Nagar Palika Parishads.

4.
All the daily wage employees in
class 4 category who have completed 10
years of service as on June 29, 2001 are
entitled to get minimum of the pay scales
of the regularly appointed employees.

The petitions are allowed in terms of
the aforestated directions.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 09.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28405 of 2003

Prem Jeet and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Radha Kant Jha
Sri Satyanshu Ojha
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nirpendra Misra

Constitution of India- Article 14 and 16-
Regularisation of Service-Kanpur Nagar
Nigam advertised for selection of posts
of class III and class IV employees-
Petitioners claimed for regularization on
the
grounds
that
certain
class
III
employees, similarly situate, appointed
on
consolidated
pay
have
been
regularised-held-wrong decision can not
be basis for claim pirety.

Held- Para 5

From the above discussion, it would thus
follow that the petitioners have no right
to the posts held by them and they
cannot claim regularization merely on
the dint that they have already put in
three years of service on the posts. In
the
instant
case,
the
process
of
recruitment has already commenced by
means of the impugned advertisement.
The petitioners who admittedly were
appointed on a consolidated pay and
they were not selected in the manner in
which regular employees are selected
nor have they been subjected to the
rigours of selection in order to judge
their
compatibility
even
with
the
minimum requirements to hold the posts
and in the circumstances, no argument
of substance has been made to hold
good
the
submissions
that
the
petitioners are entitled to regularization.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. By means of the present petition
the petitioners who claim to have been
appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.
1350/- to perform odd works earmarked
and assigned to class IV employees, have
canvassed the validity of advertisement
dated 21.6.2003 and consequently, sought
its quashment by means of a writ of
certiorari studded with further relief of a
writ
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding the respondents to refrain
from making appointments on class IV
posts held by the petitioners.

2. It transpires from the record that
the petitioners 1 to 4 were appointed on
22.12.2000 while petitioners 5 and 6 were
appointed on 15.5.2000 and 1.7.2000.
According to the allegations in the writ
petition, while they were still performing
their respective duties assigned to them,
Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar advertised
recruitment on class 3 and class 4 posts in
the
Nagar
Nigam
by
means
of
advertisement dated 21.6.2003. It is
claimed by the petitioners that they have
already
preferred
their
respective
representations
to
the
authorities
concerned for regularization and while the
representation
was
still
sub
judice,
advertisement appeared in the news paper
as for recruitment of class 3 and class 4
posts. In the back drop of the afore stated
facts, the relief of quashment of the
advertisement in so far as it related to the
petitioners and further relief of mandamus
to the respondents to refrain from making
appointment against six class 4 posts have
been claimed.

3. The main plank of the argument
put forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that in the recent past,
certain class 3 employees namely, Sanjay
Singh and Mahesh Chandra Shukla
appointed on consolidated pay on and
around the date on which the petitioners
were
appointed
have
already
been
regularized and on this score, proceeds
the submissions, the petitioners' case
should also have been reckoned with for
regularization but instead of passing
appropriate orders on the representations
preferred
by
the
petitioners,
the
respondents have advertised the post. In
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Prem Jeet and others V. The State of U.P. and others
897
aid of his submissions, the learned
counsel has referred to para 13 of the writ
petition. From a scrutiny of the averments
in para 3, it does transpire that the
petitioners have named two persons
claiming them to have been appointed on
consolidated
pay
and
subsequently
regularized but have not indicated precise
date or any document to vouch for the fact
that they were appointed on consolidated
pay and further that they were regularized
and in the circumstances, the averments
cannot be placed on a high pedestal
except that the averments are vague and
cannot
be
credited
with
being
authenticated
or
supported
by
any
documentary evidence.

4. The learned counsel then
switched gear to the submission that the
petitioners have already completed a span
of three years and in deference to the ratio
flowing from various decisions of the
Apex Court, the petitioners should also be
regularised. Indisputably the process of
regularization
involves
regular
appointment which can only be done in
accordance with the prescribed procedure.
(See- Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. V. Dr.
P. Sambasiva Rao, 1996 (1) SLR (SC)
805). In the instant case, it is not disputed
that the petitioners were appointed on a
consolidated pay. However, they claim
that their representations are still sub
judice and pending decision on the
representation, the posts including the
posts held by the petitioners have been
advertised.
In
connection
with
the
proposition, it is worthy of mention that
there should be some statutory provision
on which they could claim regularization.
No such statutory provision has been
adverted to nor the learned counsel has
drawn attention to the fact that any
scheme for such regularization is in the
offing or has been formulated or framed
by the Nagar Nigam. It is too patent from
the record that the petitioners were
appointed on consolidated pay for a
definite
period
interspersed
with
extention. It is not borne out that they
were appointed according to Rules and
procedure
prescribed
for
regular
appointment.
In
quintessence,
no
procedure was adopted in order to
adjudge suitability of the petitioners for
the posts. In connection with this
proposition, ratio flowing from a recent
decision in State of Haryana V. Tilak
Raj may be considered. Though decided
in different context, it has been held by
the Apex Court that a daily wager holds
no posts and the respondent workers in
that case cannot be held to hold any posts
to claim any comparison with the regular
and permanent staff. In State of Haryana
v. Piara Singh1 the Apex Court has
deprecated the practice observing that
direction
to
regularize
adhoc
appointments, work charged employees
etc. would only result in encouraging of
unhealthy practice of back door entry.
What cannot be done directly cannot be
allowed to be done in such direct manner.
In Hindustan shipyard Ltd. v. Dr. P.
Sambasiva
Rao2,
the
Apex
Court
observed that process of regularization
involves regular appointment which can
only be done in accordance with the
prescribed
procedure
and
that
regularization
of
service
without
following the prescribed procedure is not
permissible. It was further observed by
the Apex Court that only direction that
can be given is that such officers should
be
considered
by
duly
constituted

1 1992 (4) SLR (SC) 770
2 1996 (1) SLR (S.C.) 805
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
selection committee as per the Rules for
the purposes of regular appointment.

5. From the above discussion, it
would thus follow that the petitioners
have no right to the posts held by them
and they cannot claim regularization
merely on the dint that they have already
put in three years of service on the posts.
In the instant case, the process of
recruitment has already commenced by
means of the impugned advertisement.
The petitioners who admittedly were
appointed on a consolidated pay and they
were not selected in the manner in which
regular employees are selected nor have
they been subjected to the rigours of
selection
in
order
to
judge
their
compatibility even with the minimum
requirements to hold the posts and the
circumstances, no argument of substance
has been made to hold good the
submissions that the petitioners are
entitled
to
regularization.
Mere
submission that the petitioners have put in
a span of 3 years of service does not
furnish foundation for regularization. The
learned counsel at this stage has invoked
the aid of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution on the ground that certain
class
3
employees
who
too
were
appointed on consolidated pay on and
around the date have already been
regularized and as such the petitioners too
are entitled to extend the benefit on parity
ground. As stated supra, the averments as
contained in para 13 of the writ petition
which is the genesis for claiming parity,
are of vague and generalized nature and
nothing tangible has been produced
before the Court to lend authenticity to
the averments in para 13 of the writ
petition. I would not forbear from
expressing that there should be some basis
and the petitioner should lay foundation
for claiming the benefit flowing from
Articles 14 and 16. At the risk of
repetition, it may be stated that it is not
the case that the Nagar Nigam has framed
any such scheme for regularization nor
the counsel has drawn attention to any
statutory rule. In case, any such action for
regularization of class 3 employees
appointed on consolidated pay has been
taken, the same has not been proved
beyond any shadow of doubt and in the
circumstances, benefit of parity can not be
taken aid of or claimed in relation to
alleged
regularization
of
Class
3
employees as stated in para 13 of the writ
petition. Non arbitrariness is no doubt
acknowledged as an ingredient of Article
14 pervading the entire realm of State
action but in the instant case, no
arbitrariness of discrimination has been
proved reasonable doubt and hence, the
plea of the learned counsel has no cutting
edge and is liable to be rejected. Even
assuming
in
connection
with
the
proposition of the learned counsel that
certain persons appointed on consolidated
pay in class 3 posts were regularized, it is
well settled position that the same cannot
be invoked in aid to their advantage by
the petitioners. In State of Punjab v. Dr.
Rajeev Sarwal, the Apex Court observed
that wrong decision of the Administrative
authority cannot be elevated to the status
of a precedent to be applied in other
cases. In the like vein in Coromandel
Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Union of India the
Apex Court echoed the same view
holding that a wrong decision in favour of
any party does not entitle any other party
to claim benefit on the basis of that
decision. In the above conspectus, if at all,
any administrative order regularizing the
services of certain persons on class 3
posts, was made, the same cannot be
invoked in aid by the petitioners to seek
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Radha Charan Yadava V. The Chairman, Town Area Committee, Mathura
899
parity for similar orders in the matter of
regularization.

6. As a result of foregoing discussion
the petition fails and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19966 of 1989

Radha Charan Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
Chairman,
Town
Area
Committee,
Mathura

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Goswami
Sri J.K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Merun Dey

(A) U.P. Fundamental Rule 1956, Rule
56 (68 CJ) readwith Constitution of India
Article 226-whether order of compulsory
retirement-passed in public interest can
not be interfered under writ jurisdiction.

Held- Para 27

Case law relied on:
2001 (2) AWC 1445, AIR 1971 SC 40 (1971) 1
SCR 791, 1987 SC 948, (1987) 2 SCR 583, AIR
1977 SC 2411, (1977) 9 SCC 345, (1977) 2
SCR 365, AIR 1977 SC 854, (1981) 1 SCR 507,
AIR 1980 SC 1894, (1971) 1 SCR 791, AIR
1971 SC 40, (1987) 2 SCR 583, AIR 1987 SC
948, AIR 1977 SC 2411, (1977) 4 SCC 345,
(1977) 2 SCR 365, AIR 1977 SC 854, (1981) 1
SCR 507, (AIR 1980 SC 1894), (1971) 1 SCR
791, (AIR 1971 SC 40), (1992) 1 SCR 836, AIR
1992 SC 1020, (1020), (1992) 2 SCC 299,
(1970) 2 SCC 876, 1993 AIR SCW 1008, 2001
(3) SCC 314, AIR 1979 SC 193, AIR 1975 SC
1487, AIR 1976 SC 1841, AIR 1980 SC 953,
(1980) 1 SLR 847, AIR 1971 SC 2151, AIR
1965 All 142, (1967) 2 SCR 333, AIR 1967 SC
1260, AIR 1971 SC 2151, AIR 1976 SC 2547,
(1973) 2 MLJ 485, AIR 1974 SC 423, AIR 1971
SC 1011, (1979 SLJ 517) (1955) 1 SCR 26, AIR
1981 SC 70, (1971) SCR 791, (1975) 1 SCR
814, AIR 1974 SC 2192, (1984) 2 SCR 453,
AIR 1980 SC 1095, (1980) Supp. SCC 229, AIR
1989 SC 72, AIR 1994 SC 1261, AIR 1993 SC
383, AIR 1984 SC 630, AIR 1991 SC 534, 1973
SC 698, (1990) 1 SCC 783, AIR (1990) SC
1004, 1994 SUPP. (3) SCC 424, (1995) SUPP.
1 SCC 184, 1995 SCC (L & S) 375, 1995 ATC
146, (1995) II LLJ 757, (1995) 6 SCC 165,
1995 SCC ( L& S) 1361, 1995 31 ATC 479,
(1996) 5 SCC 111, 1996 SCC (L & S) 1144,
AIR 1996 SC 2436, (1996) 5 SCC 231, 1996
SCC (L & S) 1169, 1996 LAB IC 2062, (1997)
11 SCC 366, 1997 SCC (L &S) 1764, (1997) 6
SCC 228, 1997 SCC ( L& S) 1654, 1997 LAB.
IC 2866, AIR 1998 SC 1661, (1998)4 SCC 92,
1998 SCC (L &S) 1004, (1998) Lab IC 1401,
(1998) II LLJ 324, (1998) 3 LLN 94, (1996)
3SCC 672, 1996 SCC (L & S) 799, AIR 1996 SC
1736, (2001) 2 SCC 305, AIR 1954 SC 369,
(1955) 1 SCR 26, 1987 2 SCC 188, (1987) 3
ATC 496, 1994 SUPP. (3) SCC (L & S) 521,
(1992) 21 ATC 649 (1994) SUPP(3) SCC 424,
1995 SCC (L & S) 74, (1994) 28 ATC 445 (
SCC PAGE 430 PARA 9), (2002) 3 SCC 641,
(1992) 2 SCC 299, 1993 SCC (L&S) 521,
(1992) 21 ATC 649( SCC PAGE 315-16 PARA
34), 1998 4 SCC 92, 1998 SCC (L & S) 1004(
SCC P. 99 PARA 11), (1992) 2 SCC 317, AIR
1994 SC 1261, (1998) 4 SCC 92, 1998 (9) SCC
220, (1997) 7 SCC 483, 1997 (6) SCC 381.

In
view
of
the
above
decisions
compulsory retirement order has been
passed against the petitioner in the
public interest did not indicate any
stigma and the principle of natural
justice is not attracted. Therefore, no
scope of any interference is made out.

(B) Compulsory retirement-entitles no
civil consequences can not be questioned
in writ jurisdiction.

Held-Para 19

The
compulsory
retirement
when
exercised
subject
to
the
conditions