# Sant Lal v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1325 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-10-31 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13636 of 2011 - **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sant-lal-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42396 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 226-Release of Vehicle-offense under Section 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C.-motorcycle involved in accident-under Section 203-B (I) of Motor Vehicle Act-in absence of finding of either causing death or grievous hurt-absence of either pending claim Petition on awardimposing condition to deposit security of Rs. 4 Lac apart from Rs. 2 Lac towards market value-held-highly onerous ## Text 3 All] Sant Lal V. State of U.P. and others 1325 the first award till date of his reinstatement. Similar direction has been given by the Supreme Court in para 28 of the judgment in the case of Devinder Singh (supra). 13. In the circumstances, having gone through the award dated 24.8.1993 and the order dated 15.7.1994 and the direction given by the Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh (supra), in my opinion, there is no illegality or infirmity in the two impugned orders. 14. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13636 of 2011 Sant Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajesh Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group-D post Rules 2001-Rule 4-Regularization of Daily Wagers-rejection on ground-not completed 240 days continuous workingin the year 1981-out of job for the last 17 years-held-illegal-only requirement that should be engaged prior to 29.06.1991 and be found working on 21.09.2001-Non consideration of these factors-entire finding violated-quasheddirection for fresh consideration issued. Held: Para-5 From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, the only requirement for consideration for regularisation is that a person appointed on daily wage basis should be in Government Service on or before 29th June, 1991 and is still continuing in service on the date of the commencement of these Rules. The Rules have come into force from 21st September, 2001. The petitioner's case for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that he had not been worked for 240 days in the year 1981. Rule-4 does not prescribe that a daily wage person should work for 240 days in a calender year. The Rule only prescribes that he should have worked on daily wage basis on or before 29th June, 1991 and is continuing in service on the date of commencement of these Rules of 2001. (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.) 1. The petitioner's claim for regularization of his service, was rejected by an order dated 04.12.2010, against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. In the impugned order, it has only been stated that the petitioner was an employee on daily wage basis in the year 1981 and since, he had not worked for more than 240 days in a calender year, his services could not be regularized under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group- D Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2001). 3. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have come out with an additional stand, namely that the petitioner had only worked for a limited period in the year, 1981 and thereafter did not work for 1326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 the next 17 years. This fact is however, not indicated in the impugned order and therefore, this additional fact can not be taken into consideration. 4. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2001 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present issue and have formulated the said rule, which has been extracted hereunder: 4. (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 order. 5. From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, the only requirement for consideration for regularisation is that a person appointed on daily wage basis should be in Government Service on or before 29th June, 1991 and is still continuing in service on the date of the commencement of these Rules. The Rules have come into force from 21st September, 2001. The petitioner's case for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that he had not been worked for 240 days in the year 1981. Rule-4 does not prescribe that a daily wage person should work for 240 days in a calender year. The Rule only prescribes that he should have worked on daily wage basis on or before 29th June, 1991 and is continuing in service on the date of commencement of these Rules of 2001. 6. In the light of the aforesaid, the rejection of the petitioner's case is patently erroneous and can not be sustained. 7. The impugned order is quashed. 8. Writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted again to the Authority to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order in the light of observations made above within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13740 of 2012 Mairaj Ahmad Khan ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Satyendra Pratap Singh-I Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Constitution of India, Article 226-Release of Vehicle-offense under Section 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C.-motorcycle involved in accident-under Section 203-B (I) of Motor Vehicle Act-in absence of finding of either causing death or grievous hurt-absence of either pending claim Petition on awardimposing condition to deposit security of Rs. 4 Lac apart from Rs. 2 Lac towards market value-held-highly onerous