# Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1156
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-09-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30643 of 2007
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41736
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Appointment on Group-D post Rules
2001-Rule 4 (1) (a)-Regularisation of
Daily wagers working on Group-D postsince
1990-forest
Department-not
disputed
their
functioningRegularisation
can
not
be
denieddirection for fresh consideration issued.

Held: Para 9 and 10

In the opinion of the Court the aforesaid
stand taken in the counter affidavit is
untenable in law inasmuch as if the
petitioner was factually working in the
year 1991 particularly on the cut off date
i.e. 29th June 1991 then he falls for
consideration
for
the
benefit
of
regularization and payment of minimum
wages as a Group-D employee keeping in
view the 2001 Rules as well as the
decisions rendered by this Court and by
the Apex Court.

Coming to the relevancy part as stated in
Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit
suffice it to say that such a daily wager
has to be continued in service on the
date of the commencement of the rules.
The rules have commenced on 21st
December, 2001. There is no denial that
the petitioner was working on 21st
December 2001 and has been paid his
wages. In view of this the impugned
order dated 15th March 2005 and 8th
March 2005 Annexure 6 to the writ
petition is unsustainable and it is hereby
quashed. The matter is remitted back to
the respondent no. 3 for reconsideration
of the claim of the petitioner in the light
of the observations made herein above
within a period of three months of the
date of presentation of a certified copy
of this order before him.

## Text

1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
per Article 342 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, the writ petition
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATE: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30643 of 2007

Rajendra Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Diptiman Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wagers
Appointment on Group-D post Rules
2001-Rule 4 (1) (a)-Regularisation of
Daily wagers working on Group-D postsince
1990-forest
Department-not
disputed
their
functioningRegularisation
can
not
be
denieddirection for fresh consideration issued.

Held: Para 9 and 10

In the opinion of the Court the aforesaid
stand taken in the counter affidavit is
untenable in law inasmuch as if the
petitioner was factually working in the
year 1991 particularly on the cut off date
i.e. 29th June 1991 then he falls for
consideration
for
the
benefit
of
regularization and payment of minimum
wages as a Group-D employee keeping in
view the 2001 Rules as well as the
decisions rendered by this Court and by
the Apex Court.

Coming to the relevancy part as stated in
Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit
suffice it to say that such a daily wager
has to be continued in service on the
date of the commencement of the rules.
The rules have commenced on 21st
December, 2001. There is no denial that
the petitioner was working on 21st
December 2001 and has been paid his
wages. In view of this the impugned
order dated 15th March 2005 and 8th
March 2005 Annexure 6 to the writ
petition is unsustainable and it is hereby
quashed. The matter is remitted back to
the respondent no. 3 for reconsideration
of the claim of the petitioner in the light
of the observations made herein above
within a period of three months of the
date of presentation of a certified copy
of this order before him.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1.

The
petitioner
has
been
discontinued as a daily wager in the
Forest Department and simultaneously
an order has been passed on 15th March
2005
refusing
the
benefit
of
regularization to the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner's claim does
not fall within the provisions of The
Uttar Pradesh Reguarisation of Daily
Wages Appointments on Group D Posts
Rules 2001.

2. Learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the impugned
order proceeds on erroneous assumption
of facts and law inasmuch as the
petitioner was working as a daily wager
since 1990 prior to the cut off date of
29th June 1991 and was also working on
the date of the 2001 Rules which were
enforced on 21st December 2001. He
submits that in view of the provisions of
the aforesaid rules particularly Rule
4(1)(a), the petitioner is entitled for
regularization and the facts in support of
such a claim have been completely
ignored as such the impugned order is
vitiated.
3 All] Rajendra Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1157

3. Learned Standing Counsel on
the other hand contends that factually
the petitioner has been unable to
establish his case with regard to
functioning so as to entitle him the
benefit of regularization and therefore
the impugned order does not suffer from
any infirmity. He submits that in the
absence of any proof of his functioning
in the manner as provided for under the
rules the petitioner cannot be allowed
the benefit of regularization.

4. I have perused the records and
the affidavits have been exchanged
between the parties.

5. The petitioner has come out
with a clear case that he was working
since 1990 and the petitioner relies on a
certification by the Forest Range Officer
dated 1st June 1994 Annexure-1 to the
writ petition. The said certificate recites
that the petitioner continuously worked
on daily wages from September 1990 to
May 1994.

6. The aforesaid annexure has been
narrated in Paragraph 5 of the writ
petition. The respondents have given
their reply in paragraph 8 to the same
which is quoted hereinbelow:

"Para 8. That, the contends of para
no. 5 of the writ petition are not correct
as they are stated. The petitioner had
never
been
paid
salary
by
the
department but he has been given
wages as admissible to the dailywager.
The service of the dailywager start
from morning and came to an end in
evening
automatically.
Certificate
which has been annexed by the
petitioner as annexure-1 to the writ
petition is no relevancy with the
regularisation of the petitioner on
group 'D' post."

7. A perusal of the said reply given
in the counter affidavit clearly indicates
that the petitioner was given wages as
admissible to a daily wager. The said
paragraph does not deny the working of
the petitioner as certified by the Forest
Range Officer from 1990 to 1994, nor is
it stated that the said certificate is fake
or forged. The petitioner therefore has
led evidence to indicate that he has
worked as a daily wager on the cut off
date.

8. The stand taken is that the
certificate is of no relevancy keeping in
view the 2001 regularization rules.

9. In the opinion of the Court the
aforesaid stand taken in the counter
affidavit is untenable in law inasmuch
as if the petitioner was factually
working in the year 1991 particularly on
the cut off date i.e. 29th June 1991 then
he falls for consideration for the benefit
of
regularization
and
payment
of
minimum
wages
as
a
Group-D
employee keeping in view the 2001
Rules as well as the decisions rendered
by this Court and by the Apex Court.

10. Coming to the relevancy part
as stated in Paragraph 8 of the counter
affidavit suffice it to say that such a
daily wager has to be continued in
service
on
the
date
of
the
commencement of the rules. The rules
have commenced on 21st December,
2001. There is no denial that the
petitioner
was
working
on
21st
December 2001 and has been paid his
wages. In view of this the impugned
order dated 15th March 2005 and 8th
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
March 2005 Annexure 6 to the writ
petition is unsustainable and it is hereby
quashed. The matter is remitted back to
the respondent no. 3 for reconsideration
of the claim of the petitioner in the light
of the observations made hereinabove
within a period of three months of the
date of presentation of a certified copy
of this order before him.

11. So far as the claim of payment
of
minimum
wages
is
concerned
reference may be had to the Division
Bench judgment of this Court given in
Special
Appeal
No.1205
of
2010
(Chanchal Kumar Tiwari and others Vs.
Shri Hari Shankar).

The writ petition is allowed.
---------