# Rahul Sachan v. Income Tax Officer

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1474
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-15
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 799 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-sachan-v-income-tax-officer-51947
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections
148, 148 A(b) & 148 A(d) - Show cause
notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Act-
proposing
to
initiate
reassessment
proceedings- Explanation rejected-
5 All. Rahul Sachan Vs. Income Tax Officer
1475
reassessment proceedings ordered under
Section 148 A(d) of the Act- Test of
subjective satisfaction vis-à-vis amended
and unamended provision- presently, preexisting rule requiring to record 'reason to
believe' does not exist- Pre-conditions for
initiating reaasessment proceedings under
amended
law
explained-
information/objective
material
that
'suggest' escapement of income- conduct
of
an
inquiry-
show
cause
notice-
opportunity to the assessee- decision of
the assessing officer- 'fit case to initiate
assessment proceedings under Section 148
of
the
Act-
No
minute/detailed
examination of decision required- unless
mindless, perverse of patently contrary- No
fault
in
initiation
of
reassessment
proceedings- Writ petition dismissed.
(Paras 9, 11, 12, 16 and 19)

HELD:
What is now required by way of a pre-condition
to initiate reassessment proceedings is : the
information/objective material that 'suggests'
escapement of income; the conduct of an
'enquiry', if required, with respect to that; issue
of a show cause notice to grant the assessee an
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
information/objective
material
that
income
chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in his
case; a 'decision' of the assessing officer (on the
basis of that material and the reply furnished by
the assessee), that the material that may have
come to the hands of the assessing authority
'suggests', it is a 'fit case' to initiate reassessment
proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.(Para
11)

Thus, the legislature has carefully departed from
the strict test of recording of 'reason to believe'
and substituted the same with a lighter and more
subjective 'decision' of the assessing officer that
it is a 'fit case' to reassess the assessee, based
on the 'suggestion' (emerging from perusal of the
'information' i.e. objective/relevant material),
that income had escaped assessment at the
hands of the assessee. (Para 12)

Thus, read in conjunction, Section 148A(b), (c)
and (d) would require that assessing authority
may not act whimsically or capriciously or on
extraneous material or in ignorance of the reply
that may have been furnished by the assessee (to
the show cause notice issued under Section
148A(b) of the Act), at the same time, that
provision does not obligate the assessing
authority to specifically deal with the individual
objections, pointwise, or to record detailed
reasons while making the 'decision' that it is a 'fit
case' to initiate reassessment proceedings, in the
case of an assessee. (Para 14)

So long as that exercise is bona fide and not
mindless, perverse or patently contrary to the law
etc., and so long as that 'decision' made by the
assessing authority-to initiate such reassessment
proceedings is not unconnected/disjuncted or
contrary to the 'suggestion' directly arising from
the 'information'/relevant material received by
him-that income has escaped assessment, no
minute/detailed examination of that 'decision' is
required to be made. (Para 16)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-14)

## Text

1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nor was any godown or other premises of
those firms could found. It appears that the
firms were existing on paper only.

19. Although, the registration of the
firms existed when the petitioner claimed to
have
obtained
inward
supplies,
the
investigation revealed that the firm itself
does not exist. In case, GSTIN registration
has been obtained in the name of any nonexistent firm. It being a non-existent firm,
could not have made any actual supplies.
Merely because the firm was registered on
the date of transaction, it cannot be said that
the department is bound to give I.T.C.
benefit to the petitioner, even though it has
been revealed later on the firm was nonexistent and it could not have made any
actual supplies.

20.

The
findings
of
Special
Investigation Branch reveal that inward
supplies have been received from nonexistent firm to take advantage of I.T.C.,
which amounts to committing fraud against
the department and the public exchequer.

21. It is settled law that fraud vitiates
even the most solemn proceedings and the
mere fact that the I.T.C. benefit had earlier
been granted to the petitioner merely
because the firms were registered, would not
create any estoppel against the authority
taking appropriate action for claiming
refund of the benefit wrongly availed by the
petitioner on the ground of receiving inward
supplies from non-existent firms.

22. The contention that no supplies had
been received from the non-existent firms
also finds support from the fact that the
goods receipts issued by M/s Goyal Goods
Carry Corporation, were on different
formats. The GSTIN mentioned in the
transport Bilties was found to be not valid.
The phone number mentioned in the Bilties,
was also not of any transport company and
it was being used by some lady at Kasganj.

23. The aforesaid findings recorded by
the Special Investigation Branch give rise to
sufficient material to support the order
passed by the adjudicating authority against
the petitioner for recovery of the amount
claimed by him as input tax credit and for
imposing penalty and liability to pay interest
thereon. The appellate authority has passed
the impugned order after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and the material available on
record.

24. There appears no illegality in the
impugned orders. The writ petition lacks
merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1474
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ Tax No. 799 of 2024

Rahul Sachan ...Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gaurav Mahajan

Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections
148, 148 A(b) & 148 A(d) - Show cause
notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Act-
proposing
to
initiate
reassessment
proceedings- Explanation rejected-
5 All. Rahul Sachan Vs. Income Tax Officer
1475
reassessment proceedings ordered under
Section 148 A(d) of the Act- Test of
subjective satisfaction vis-à-vis amended
and unamended provision- presently, preexisting rule requiring to record 'reason to
believe' does not exist- Pre-conditions for
initiating reaasessment proceedings under
amended
law
explained-
information/objective
material
that
'suggest' escapement of income- conduct
of
an
inquiry-
show
cause
notice-
opportunity to the assessee- decision of
the assessing officer- 'fit case to initiate
assessment proceedings under Section 148
of
the
Act-
No
minute/detailed
examination of decision required- unless
mindless, perverse of patently contrary- No
fault
in
initiation
of
reassessment
proceedings- Writ petition dismissed.
(Paras 9, 11, 12, 16 and 19)

HELD:
What is now required by way of a pre-condition
to initiate reassessment proceedings is : the
information/objective material that 'suggests'
escapement of income; the conduct of an
'enquiry', if required, with respect to that; issue
of a show cause notice to grant the assessee an
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
information/objective
material
that
income
chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in his
case; a 'decision' of the assessing officer (on the
basis of that material and the reply furnished by
the assessee), that the material that may have
come to the hands of the assessing authority
'suggests', it is a 'fit case' to initiate reassessment
proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.(Para
11)

Thus, the legislature has carefully departed from
the strict test of recording of 'reason to believe'
and substituted the same with a lighter and more
subjective 'decision' of the assessing officer that
it is a 'fit case' to reassess the assessee, based
on the 'suggestion' (emerging from perusal of the
'information' i.e. objective/relevant material),
that income had escaped assessment at the
hands of the assessee. (Para 12)

Thus, read in conjunction, Section 148A(b), (c)
and (d) would require that assessing authority
may not act whimsically or capriciously or on
extraneous material or in ignorance of the reply
that may have been furnished by the assessee (to
the show cause notice issued under Section
148A(b) of the Act), at the same time, that
provision does not obligate the assessing
authority to specifically deal with the individual
objections, pointwise, or to record detailed
reasons while making the 'decision' that it is a 'fit
case' to initiate reassessment proceedings, in the
case of an assessee. (Para 14)

So long as that exercise is bona fide and not
mindless, perverse or patently contrary to the law
etc., and so long as that 'decision' made by the
assessing authority-to initiate such reassessment
proceedings is not unconnected/disjuncted or
contrary to the 'suggestion' directly arising from
the 'information'/relevant material received by
him-that income has escaped assessment, no
minute/detailed examination of that 'decision' is
required to be made. (Para 16)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J. & Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gaurav
Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel,
for the revenue.

2. Challenge has been raised to the
order dated 27.03.2024 passed under
Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and
the consequential notice of the same date,
issued under Section 148 of the Act for the
Assessment Year 2020-21.

3. For the Assessment Year 2020-21,
the petitioner had filed his regular return of
income. However, no scrutiny assessment
arose in his case. On 19.02.2024, a show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner
under Section 148A(b) of the Act, proposing
to initiate reassessment proceeding for the
Assessment Year 2020-21. The annexure to
that notice contains the summary of
1476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
information on which such proceedings
were proposed to be initiated. It reads as
below :

"As per information flagged under
Risk
Management
strategy(RMS)
formulated by Central Board of Direct Taxes
(CBDT), it has been noticed that you have
supplied goods /services of Rs. 73968000/-
during financial year 2019-20 (relevant to
assessment year 2020-21) to M/s Everett
Infra and Engineering Equipments Private
Limited. On the basis of enquiries conducted
by the Income Tax Department it has been
established the M/s Everett Infra and
Engineering Equipments Private Limited is
not doing any actual business activities and
providing accommodation entries. This
company is involved in receiving and giving
bogus contracts/sub-contracts and raising
invoices without delivery of any actual
goods/services. The company is merely
working as entry/exit provider.

As you have entered into the
transaction with this bogus company which
is involved in providing accommodation
entries the supply of goods/services to this
company also appears to be bogus. It leads
to inference that you are also one of the
participants the tax evasion mechanism of
above company. The above information
suggests escapement of income in your case.
Please also refer to attachment of this show
cause
notice
which
encloses
sheet
containing details of information suggesting
escapement of income in your case. The
details of information has also been
elaborately discussed in above para which
may also be referred to.

In the light information (as
discussed in above para) suggesting
escapement of income in your case in
assessment year 2020-21, please submit
your response on the issue raised in this
show cause notice by the due date, as
mentioned in this notice, positively."

4. The petitioner responded to the
above notice and submitted a detailed reply
dated 18.03.2024. In that, the petitioner
referred to entries recorded in his books of
accounts and other materials to assert that he
had actually sold goods to M/s Everett Infra
and Engineering Equipments Pvt. Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the 'purchaser).
He also referred to the statement of profit
and loss account of the purchaser to assert
that the 'purchaser' had disclosed its revenue
receipts in excess of Rs. 290 crores, for the
Assessment Year 2020-21.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner's Assessing
Authority passed the impugned order under
section 148A(d) of the Act. It has rejected
the petitioner's objection after relying on
oral statements of certain entities, recorded
during
the
course
of
other/search
proceedings (not involving the petitioner or
the 'purchaser'), as also on the reports of the
Inspector of Income Tax, Central Circle-19,
New Delhi, as received by the Assessing
Authority. Also, reference has been made to
the fact that notices/summons issued to the
'purchaser', arising from the information
received from the Inspector of the Income
Tax, have remained unresponded. The above
information was communicated to the
petitioner's Assessing Authority by the
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-19, New Delhi.

6. In such fact background, learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit, the
petitioner's objections as to absence of
relevant material, have remained from being
considered. After taking note of those
objections raised, the Assessing Authority
has proceeded to reject the same, without
giving even minimal reasons to reject the
5 All. Rahul Sachan Vs. Income Tax Officer
1477
objections. In his submission, though the
statute has been amended and the formal
requirement to record 'reason to believe' to
initiate reassessment proceedings does not
exist, at the same time, the amended
provision itself obligates the assessing
authority to 'consider the reply' submitted in
response to the show cause notice issued
under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Only on
such consideration, the assessing authority
may 'decide', on the strength of material
available on record (including the reply of
the assessee), whether it is a 'fit case' to
initiate reassessment proceedings. That
exercise has not been done. The order passed
under Section 148A(d) of the Act is wholly
non-speaking. It has been passed in a
perfunctory manner with a pre-conceived
notion. Therefore, the same may never be
sustained as jurisdiction has not arisen to
reassess the petitioner for the Assessment
Year 2020-21.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the revenue would contend, the prerequirement of 'reason to believe' has been
done away. Therefore, the strict test of
existence of such 'reason to believe'-to
initiate reassessment proceedings cannot be
reintroduced by reading the amended statute
in the manner suggested. In his submission,
insofar as show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner and its reply was 'considered'
before the impugned order [under Section
148A(d)] was passed, no procedural lapse
has occurred. The manner or words in which
decision has been recorded may not be
justiciable and it may not be read in a
manner as may resurrect or reintroduce the
pre-existing requirement of recording of
'reason to believe' (as it existed under the
unamended law).

8. Coming to the facts of the case, he
would submit, sufficient material exists to
allow the reassessment proceedings to arise
on the test of subjective 'satisfaction'
recorded by the assessing authority that it
was a 'fit case' to initiate reassessment
proceedings against the petitioner for the
Assessment Year 2020-21. That subjective
'satisfaction' has arisen on the consideration
of the facts that the Inspector of Income Tax
had disclosed in his successive reports that
at none of the places of business of the
'purchaser'
namely,
(i)
2664/2/3T/F,
Beadonpura Bank Street, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110005; (ii) Y.C. Co-working Space,
3rd floor, Plot No. 94, Dwarka Sector-13,
Opposite Metro Station, New Delhi110078; (iii) M4, (ground and First Floor),
South Extension II, South Delhi, New
Delhi-110049; and (iv) RH H-4AM,
Mahavir Enclave, Palam Colony, New
Delhi-110045 any business activity of the
petitioner was found existing. Also, the
'purchaser' and its key person had not
responded to the notices and summons
issued to them, to ascertain the correct
facts. Once these facts exist, according to
learned counsel for the revenue, the
subjective 'satisfaction' recorded by the
assessing
authority
to
reassess
the
petitioner, may not be faulted.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the record, in the
first place, it needs no elaboration that the
pre-existing rule, to record 'reason to
believe' does not exist. That rule required :
existence of relevant material to indicate
escapement of income from assessment;
application of mind by the assessing
authority to that material to entertain
relevant reasons; formation of belief that
any income had escaped assessment, based
on such reasons. Therefore, the precedential
law that arose in that statutory context, is
neither relevant nor the same requires any
consideration, at this stage.
1478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Section 148A of the Act reads as
below :

"1[Conducting
inquiry,
providing opportunity before issue of
notice under section 148.

148A. The Assessing Officer shall,
before issuing any notice under section
148,-

(a) conduct any enquiry, if
required, with the prior approval of
specified authority, with respect to the
information which suggests that the income
chargeable to tax has escaped assessment;

(b) provide an opportunity of
being heard to the assessee, 2[***] by
serving upon him a notice to show cause
within such time, as may be specified in the
notice, being not less than seven days and
but not exceeding thirty days from the date
on which such notice is issued, or such time,
as may be extended by him on the basis of
an application in this behalf, as to why a
notice under section 148 should not be
issued on the basis of information which
suggests that income chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment in his case for the
relevant assessment year and results of
enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a);

(c) consider the reply of assessee
furnished, if any, in response to the showcause notice referred to in clause (b);

(d) decide, on the basis of material
available on record including reply of the
assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to
issue a notice under section 148, by passing
an order, with the prior approval of specified
authority, within one month from the end of
the month in which the reply referred to in
clause (c) is received by him, or where no
such reply is furnished, within one month
from the end of the month in which time or
extended time allowed to furnish a reply as
per clause (b) expires:

Provided that the provisions of
this section shall not apply in a case where,-

(a) a search is initiated under
section 132 or books of account, other
documents or any assets are requisitioned
under section 132A in the case of the
assessee on or after the 1st day of April,
2021; or

(b) the Assessing Officer is
satisfied, with the prior approval of the
Principal Commissioner or Commissioner
that any money, bullion, jewellery or other
valuable article or thing, seized in a search
under section 132 or requisitioned under
section 132A, in the case of any other person
on or after the 1st day of April, 2021,
belongs to the assessee; or

(c) the Assessing Officer is
satisfied, with the prior approval of the
Principal Commissioner or Commissioner
that any books of account or documents,
seized in a search under section 132 or
requisitioned under section 132A, in case of
any other person on or after the 1st day of
April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any
information contained therein, 70[relate to,
the assessee; or

(d) the Assessing Officer has
received any information under the scheme
notified under section 135A pertaining to
income
chargeable
to
tax
escaping
assessment for any assessment year in the
case of the assessee.]

Explanation.-For the purposes of
this section, specified authority means the
specified authority referred to in section
151.]

11. What is now required by way of a
pre-condition
to
initiate
reassessment
proceedings is : the information/objective
material that 'suggests' escapement of
income; the conduct of an 'enquiry', if
required, with respect to that; issue of a
show cause notice to grant the assessee an
5 All. Rahul Sachan Vs. Income Tax Officer
1479
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
information/objective material that income
chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in
his case; a 'decision' of the assessing officer
(on the basis of that material and the reply
furnished by the assessee), that the material
that may have come to the hands of the
assessing authority 'suggests', it is a 'fit case'
to initiate reassessment proceedings under
Section 148 of the Act.

12. Thus, the legislature has carefully
departed from the strict test of recording of
'reason to believe' and substituted the same
with a lighter and more subjective 'decision'
of the assessing officer that it is a 'fit case' to
reassess the assessee, based on the
'suggestion' (emerging from perusal of the
'information'
i.e.
objective/relevant
material),
that
income
had
escaped
assessment at the hands of the assessee.

13. True, in reaching such 'decision', the
assessing authority is obligated to consider
only that material that may be relevant (and
not extraneous) and the reply that may have
been furnished by the assessee, at the same
time, it is not the statutory law that he must
record specific/objective reasons to deal with
each and every objection, that may be raised.
The statute only requires an overall or broad
consideration of the reply furnished by the
assessee, to reach a 'decision' that it is 'fit case'
to initiate reassessment proceedings. To readrecording of exact reasons (to reject any
objection), into the language of Section 148A
of the Act would be to indirectly reintroduce
the requirement to record "reasons to believe",
as a pre-condition to initiate reassessment
proceedings. That requirement of law has been
specifically and completely, done away.

14. Thus, read in conjunction, Section
148A(b), (c) and (d) would require that
assessing authority may not act whimsically
or capriciously or on extraneous material or
in ignorance of the reply that may have been
furnished by the assessee (to the show cause
notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the
Act), at the same time, that provision does
not obligate the assessing authority to
specifically
deal
with
the
individual
objections, pointwise, or to record detailed
reasons while making the 'decision' that it is
a
'fit
case'
to
initiate
reassessment
proceedings, in the case of an assessee.

15. Therefore, the new statutory test
laid down under Section 148A requires-in
essence, the concern voiced by the assessee
[in his reply to notice under Section
148A(b)],
either
as
to
absence
of
'information'/relevant material or as to lack
of bonafide/prudent 'suggestion' arising
therefrom, has to be addressed, upon
requisite application of mind, seen to exist
on a plain reading of the 'decision'
[contained in the order passed under Section
148A(d) of the Act, that it is a 'fit case' to
initiate
reassessment
proceedings,
for
reason of 'suggestion' arising therefrom, that
income had escaped assessment. Thereafter,
as before, all merit issues/defences may
remain open to consideration in the
reassessment proceedings. The 'decision'
that it is a 'fit case', to initiate reassessment
proceedings is-as the language plainly
suggests
a
reflection
of
desirability
perception/evaluation
of
the
assessing
authority-to
initiate
reassessment
proceeding. To that extent it is a provision to
arm the revenue authority, to expose an
assessee to a proceeding to reassess him.

16. So long as that exercise is bona fide
and not mindless, perverse or patently
contrary to the law etc., and so long as that
'decision' made by the assessing authority-to
initiate such reassessment proceedings is not
unconnected/disjuncted or contrary to the
1480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
'suggestion' directly arising from the
'information'/relevant material received by
him-that income has escaped assessment, no
minute/detailed
examination
of
that
'decision' is required to be made.

17. In the present facts, the 'decision'
of the assessing authority to initiate
reassessment proceedings in the case of the
petitioner for Assessment Year 2020-21 has
arisen on the 'information' received that the
'purchaser' does not exist. That is contained
in the reports of the Income Tax Officer with
respect to the four addresses of the
'purchaser'.
No
direct
evidence
was
disclosed by the petitioner, (in his reply), -
to doubt the existence of that 'information'.
The 'suggestion' as to escapement of income
qua sales made to the (non-existing)
'purchaser', inheres
in it. Thus, the
'information' is relevant to the 'suggestion' as
to 'escapement of income' at the hands of the
petitioner.

18. As to the non-existence of the
'purchaser', that satisfaction further appears
to have arisen on the conduct of the
purchaser in not responding to any of the
notices and summons issued. Third, the
assessing officer has taken note, during the
course of a search proceedings and upon
recording of statement of a third party, it was
also suggested that the 'purchaser' did not
exist. Such facts had been clearly noted in
the impugned order passed under Section
148A(d) of the Act.

19. It may not be denied that the
assessing authority has not recorded any
reason to squarely deal with the further
objection raised by the petitioner that there
existed details of activity and income of the
purchaser as was available on the website of
the Registrar of Companies. In that regard,
the petitioner had also pointed out that the
purchaser company continues to exist and it
is active on the MCA portal. As noted above,
that was not a mandatory condition to be
fulfilled, at this stage. Also, in absence of
any obligation in law, to record a categorical
finding to reject any particular objection (at
this preliminary stage), no fault exists in the
initiation of reassessment proceedings
occasioned by an over all consideration of
the 'information'/relevant material. As noted
above, the 'suggestion' is clearly seen to
have arisen on the own strength of the
'information'/relevant material. Thus, the
subjective 'decision' that it is a 'fit case' to
initiate
reassessment
proceedings,
(notwithstanding the objection raised by the
petitioner), may not be faulted.

20. Suffice to note, all merit objections that
may be raised and the manner in which they
may be raised by the assessee in response to
a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the
Act are not required to be decided pointwise,
at the stage of assumption of jurisdiction i.e.
at the stage of order under Section 148A(d)
of
the
Act.
Strictly
speaking
that
requirement of law did not exist even under
the unamended law. Even then, as noted
above, the strict test of 'reason to believe'
having been done away and replaced with
the more subjective and lighter test of
'suggestion' arising from the 'information'
received by an assessing officer-that income
may have escaped assessment, we are not
inclined to lay down a stricter test (to be
satisfied by the assessing authorities), while
making a subjective 'decision', to initiate the
reassessment proceedings.

21. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks
merit and is dismissed. However, the
assessment proceedings may continue and
be concluded strictly in accordance with law
without being prejudiced by any observation
made in this order. Thus, all merit
5 All. Ramesh Kumar Pathak @ Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1481
objections/defences
are
open
to
the
petitioner. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1481
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 96 of 2024

Ramesh Kumar Pathak @ Ramesh Kumar
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vishal Kumar Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

(A) Service Law - Regularisation of services
-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission Rules, 1998 - The Uttar
Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages
Appointments on Group ''D' Posts Rules,
2001 - Rule 4 - Regularisation of daily
wages appointments on Group 'D' Posts -
Interpretation of - Eligibility conditions for
consideration - Vacancy existing on date of
promulgation of rules - Consideration of
eligible persons - Obligation of authorities
- if a vacancy is existing on the date of
promulgation of those rules and before
making any regular appointment such
persons who are eligible under the said
rules
would
be
considered
for
regularisation.(Para - 19)

(B) The Uttar Pradesh Regularization of
Daily Wages Appointments on Group ''D'
Posts Rules, 2001 - Rule 4 - Retrospective
regularization
-
Distinction
from
consideration for regularization from date
of eligibility - Claim not for retrospective
regularization but for consideration from
date of eligibility.(Para -18)
Appellant (Group - D post of mali) was engaged
as a daily wage worker in 1986 - later regularized
in 2010 - seeking regularization of his services
from 2001, when the relevant regularization rules
came into force, rather than from 2010 -
representation was moved by appellanat -
authorities rejected his representation, which
was upheld by the Single Judge.(Para-19)

HELD: - Court set aside a single judge's
judgment and ordered a fresh decision, directing
the respondent to consider petitioner's claim for
regularization from 2001 in accordance with the
Rules 2001 and the law on the subject. (Para -
20)

Writ Petition & Special Appeal allowed. (E7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. &
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. Heard.

2. By means of this appeal the appellant has
challenged the judgment dated 05.04.2024
passed in Writ A No.2741 of 2024 which
reads as under :-

"1.
Heard
Sri
Vishal
Kumar
Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Uttam Kumar Srivastava, the
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State and perused the records.
2.
By
means
of
the
instant
application filed under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing of an order dated
13.02.2024, whereby the petitioner's request
for granting the benefit of regularization
with
effect
from
2003
instead
of
regularization with effect from the date of
order dated 10.09.2010, has been rejected.
3. The petitioner's services on a
Group-D post of Mali were regularized
along with the services of six other
employees by means of an order dated