# State of U.P. & Ors v. Mahaveer Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 1027
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-21
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 846 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-mahaveer-singh-ors-53087
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Regularization of Persons
Working on Daily Wages or on Work
Charge or on Contract in Government
Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D'
Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public
Service Commission) Rules, 2016 - Rule
6(1)(i) - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 16 - Regularisation - Continuous
working - Petitioners have not rendered
continuous service over years - Whether
this interruption in service was due to
their own voluntary absence or was
caused by artificial break i.e. a deliberate
act on part of employer preventing them
from working, a question that requires
examination by competent authority - As
per Rules authority competent to assess is
Selection Committee - Duty of Selection
Committee to examine work records,
determine nature, cause of absence period
- No consideration has been made, nor
have petitioners been given opportunity to
explain reasons for their absence - Claim
of regularization must be reconsidered
afresh - Petitioners must be afforded
proper opportunity of hearing, including
chance to explain period of their absence -
Selection
Committee
shall
reconsider
entire matter, pass reasoned order -
Impugned order, set aside. (Para 9)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Mahaveer Singh & Ors.
1027
consideration the defence raised by the
Bank, has no substance.

21. In view of above discussion, the
order passed by the Commercial Court
rejecting the injunction application as well
as plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
does not suffer from any error of fact
and/or law. Consequently, the appeal fails
and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 1027
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Special Appeal No. 846 of 2024

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Mahaveer Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ratan Deep Mishra, C.S.C., S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vinod Kumar Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Regularization of Persons
Working on Daily Wages or on Work
Charge or on Contract in Government
Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D'
Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public
Service Commission) Rules, 2016 - Rule
6(1)(i) - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 16 - Regularisation - Continuous
working - Petitioners have not rendered
continuous service over years - Whether
this interruption in service was due to
their own voluntary absence or was
caused by artificial break i.e. a deliberate
act on part of employer preventing them
from working, a question that requires
examination by competent authority - As
per Rules authority competent to assess is
Selection Committee - Duty of Selection
Committee to examine work records,
determine nature, cause of absence period
- No consideration has been made, nor
have petitioners been given opportunity to
explain reasons for their absence - Claim
of regularization must be reconsidered
afresh - Petitioners must be afforded
proper opportunity of hearing, including
chance to explain period of their absence -
Selection
Committee
shall
reconsider
entire matter, pass reasoned order -
Impugned order, set aside. (Para 9)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Janardan Yadav Vs St. of U. P. & ors., 2008
(1) UPLBEC 498, (Para 18 to 25)

2. Jagannath Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2019
SCC OnLine All 8274

3. Janardan Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2008
(2) ESC 1359, (Para 10)

4. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Roop Yadav, Special
Appeal No. 47 of 2016

5. St. of U.P. Vs Raj Kumar Srivastava (2017) 4
UPLBEC 3359, (Para 171 to 175)

6. Secretary, St. of Karn. & ors. Vs Umadevi (3)
& ors.; (2006) 4 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,
J.)

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by
the State challenging the judgment of
learned Single Judge rendered in Writ-A
No. 19200 of 2019, whereby, the writ
petition has been allowed and a direction
has been issued to the State-respondent to
regularize the services of the respondentspetitioners.
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2.

It
transpires
that
respondents/petitioners
had
earlier
approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.
6580 of 2019 which came to disposed of
vide order dated 18.07.2019. The order
reads as under:

"Despite grant of opportunity on
26.4.2019 and again on 23.5.2019, learned
Standing Counsel has not been able to
obtain instructions. It is submitted that the
authorities have been communicated but no
instructions have been received so far.

Petitioners, who are six in
number, alleged that they were engaged in
the Government Gardens at Agra as Mali
on different dates between 1998 to 2001
and except for certain artificial breaks have
continuously being working till date. It is
stated that their claim for regularization is
covered
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Regularisation of Persons Working On
Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On
Contract In Government Departments On
Group "C" and Group "D" Posts (Outside
The Purview Of The Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission) Rules, 2016 notified
on 12th September, 2016, but their claim of
regularisation has not been examined by
the
authority
concerned.
Repeated
representations made since have not been
bestowed any consideration, as such,
petitioners are before this Court.

Learned Standing Counsel states
that an appropriate decision would be
taken in respect of claim of the petitioners,
by the competent authority, in accordance
with law.

In the facts and circumstances,
noticed above, this writ petition stands
disposed of with a direction upon the
respondent no. 3 to accord consideration to
the petitioners' claim for being regularized,
in accordance with law, by means of a
reasoned order to be passed, within a
period of three months from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this
order.

Any
artificial
break
in
the
working of the petitioners would be ignored
and shall not be read against the
petitioners. It would, however, be open for
the authorities to verify as to whether
petitioners had been working on the
relevant date i.e. 31st December, 2001 and
the second cut off i.e. 12th September, 2016
and
have
remained
in
employment
throughout except for artificial breaks."

3. Pursuant to above direction, the
Deputy
Director,
Horticulture,
Agra
Region, Agra vide order dated 14.10.2019
has
rejected
the
claim
of
the
respondents/petitioners on the ground that
they had not worked continuously. The
officer concerned has placed reliance upon
a chart prepared by the officer in respect of
the
working
of
the
respondents-writ
petitioners which is extracted herein:

क्र
०
सां
०
दैधनक
श्रधमक
का
नाम व
धपता/प
धत का
नाम
जन्म धतधथ
जाधत
शैधक्ष
क
आहट
ता
लगाताि कायट
प्रािांर्
किने
की धतधथ
अधर्य धक्त
1
श्री
नईम
प त्र
मज्जो
01.07.19
80
धप०जा
धत

धसतम्िि
2000
वषट
200001 के
माह
धसतम्िि
2000
से वतटमान
तक
कायटित
है।
2
श्री
गगन
देव प त्र
श्री
चिनदी
प
प्रसाद
01.07.19
76
धप०जा
धत

धदसम्िि
2004
वषट
199899
में
26 धदन
19992000
में 119
धदन तथा
4 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Mahaveer Singh & Ors.
1029
वषट
200102
में
23 धदन
कायट
धकया
तथा वषट
200001
एांव200
2-03,
वषट200
3-04
एांव वषट
200405 के
माह
नवम्िि
2004
तक
स्वैच्छा से
कायट पि
अन पधस्थ
त
िहे।
वषट
200405 के
माह
धदसम्िि
2004
से वतटमान
तक कायट
कि िहे हैं।
3
श्री
सन्तोष
क माि
उफट
शान्ती
प्रसाद
प त्र श्री
िामगोप
ल

सामा
न्य

20.03.20
05
कायाटलय
अधर्ले
खों
के
अन साि
सन्तोष
क माि
उफट
शान्ती
प्रसाद प त्र
श्री
िामगोपल
नाम के
धकसी
व्यधक्त
द्वािा कर्ी
र्ी दैधनक
श्रधमक के
रूप
में
कायट नहीं
धकया
गया
है
िधल्क श्री
सन्तोष
क माि प त्र
श्री
िामगोपा
ल द्वािा
वषट
200405 के
माह माचट
2005
से वतटमान
तक कायट
कि िहे हैं।
4
श्री
चिन
धसांह
प त्र श्री
िामदया
ल

धप०जा
धत

17.8.200
5
वषट
19981999
में
05
धदन कायट
किने के
उपिान्त
वषट
200506 के
माह
ज लाई
2005
तक
स्वैच्छा से
कायट पि
अन पधस्थ
त
िहे।
वषट
200506 के
माह
अगस्त
2005
से वतटमान
तक कायट
कि िहे हैं।
5
श्री
महािीि
धसांह
प त्र श्री
लाल
धसांह

धप०जा
धत

03.5.200
6
वषट
198899
में
60 धदन,
वषट
19992000
में
10
धदन कायट
किने
उपिान्त
माह
अप्रैल
2005
तक
स्वैच्छा से
कायट पि
अन पधस्थ
त
िहे।
प नः वषट
200506 के
माह मई
2005
में
26
धदन कायट
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
किने के
उपिान्त
माह
अप्रैल
2006
तक
स्वैच्छा से
कायट पि
अन पधस्थ
त
िहे।
वषट
200607 के
मई
2006
से वतटमान
तक कायट
कि िहे हैं।
6
श्री
महािीि
प त्र श्री
िैजनाथ

03.5.200
5
वषट
198899
में
57 धदन
कायट
किने के
उपिान्त
वषट
200607 के
माह
अप्रैल
2006
तक
स्वैच्छा से
कायट पि
अन पधस्थ
त
िहे।
वषट
20067 के माह
मई
2006
से वतटमान
तक कायट
कि िहे हैं।

4. Learned Single Judge has taken
note of the U.P. Regularization of Persons
Working on Daily Wages or on Work
Charge or on Contract in Government
Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D'
Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public
Service Commission) Rules, 2016 and has
observed that rule 6(1)(i) provides that a
person who is considered to be regularized
must be directly engaged or employed on
or before 31st December, 2001 and must be
still engaged or employed or deployed or
working
as
such
on
the
date
of
commencement of the rules.

5. Learned Single Judge has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in
Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U. P. and
others, 2008 (1) UPLBEC 498, wherein,
the learned Single Judge of this Court while
interpreting the pari materia provisions of
previous Regularization Rules of 2001
observed that requirement of continuous
working is not contemplated in the Rules
and if such a condition is read into the
provisions, it would amount to adding
words in the Rules which would be
impermissible. Learned Single Judge has
accordingly observed as under:

"18. Here in this case the rule
contemplates two conditions to be fulfilled:
(a). A person must be appointed prior to
cut off date; and (b). A person must be
working/ employed/ deployed on the date of
enforcement of the rules.

19. Looking to the chart that has
been given in the order impugned I find
Petitioners Mahaveer Singh, Mahaveer,
Gagan Dev, Charan Singh and Naime to be
appointed prior to the cut off date and that
they have been working continuously on the
enforcement of the Regularization Rules,
2016. Insofar as Santosh Kumar @ Shanti
Prasad, petitioner No.- 6 is concerned, he
is also stated to be working since 2004-05
continuously whereas the records are not
available regarding his initial engagement.

20. Thus, it is clear that except
Santosh Kumar @ Shanti Prasad all other
petitioners were appointed prior to the cut
off date, on daily wage basis by the
respondent No.- 4 as a class IV employee
(Group - D category) prior to the cut off
date 31st December, 2001 and have been
admittedly
working
on
the
date
of
4 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Mahaveer Singh & Ors.
1031
enforcement of the Regularization Rules,
2016 on 12th September, 2016.

21. In view of the above, the
second question need not be gone into as I
am able to conclude from above discussion
that an employee/ daily wager who is
required to be considered under the
Regularization Rules, 2016, is required to
be engaged prior to the cut off date and
should be employed/ deployed/ working on
the
date
of
enforcement
of
the
Regularization Rules, 2016.

22. Upon simple interpretation
from the language of the rules it is clear
that an employee to be considered for
regularisation is not required to have
continuity of service from the date his
initial appointment for regularisation under
Rules, 2016.

23. In view of the above, the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

24. The respondents are directed
to pass formal orders giving benefit of
regularisation to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5
in the light of the observations made
hereinabove.

25. Insofar as the petitioner No.-
6 is concerned he is directed to place his
document of initial engagement first, if
available to him and in the event any such
document is filed, the respondent will
consider the same and upon verification of
the document if found genuine, the
concerned respondent will be given the
same benefit of regularisation to the
petitioner No.- 6 also as he has been
admitted to be working with the respondent
No.- 4 on the date of enforcement of
Regularization Rules, 2016 as a daily
wager."

6. Learned State Counsel has placed
reliance upon a subsequent judgment of
learned Single Judge in Jagannath Yadav
Versus State of U.P. and others, 2019
SCC OnLine All 8274, wherein the
previous judgment of this Court in
Janardan Yadav versus State of U.P.
(supra)
has
been
considered.
The
judgement of learned Single Judge in the
case of Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2008 (2) ESC 1359 also fell
for consideration before a coordinate Bench
of this Court in Special Appeal No. 47 of
2016, State of U.P. v. Ram Roop Yadav.
After noticing the judgments relied upon by
learned Single Judge in the case of
Janardan Yadav (supra), the Division
Bench has observed as under:

"We find that the judgment in the
case of Sri Ram Yadav (supra) follows the
judgment in the case of Janardan Yadav
(supra) which, in our opinion, proceeds on
complete
non-consideration
of
Hindi
version of Rules of 2001. Under the Hindi
version of the Rules of 2001 a person is
entitled for being considered for regular
appointment under the Rules of 2001 only if
he has been continuously working since
prior to the cut-off date as mentioned in
Rules of 2001 i.e. 29.06.1991 and the date
of enforcement of Rules of 2001 i.e.
21.12.2001. The Hindi version of the
relevant rules reads as follows:-

"इस ननयमावली के प्रारम्भ के नदनांक को इस रूप में
ननरन्तर सेवारत हो."

A seven Judges Bench of this
Court in Special Appeal No.622 of 1965
vide
judgment
dated
13.9.1974
has
examined the issue with regards to doubt or
ambiguity
in
any
provision
in
the
authoritative english text viz a viz the hindi
text and while answering the question it has
been held as under:-

"We are, therefore, of opinion that
where there is some doubt or ambiguity in
any provision in the authoritative English
text, it is permissible to look into the Hindi
text to remove the doubt or ambiguity. We
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordingly answer the question referred to
this Bench in the affirmative."

Since in the facts of the case, we
find that there had been a break of more
than one and a half year in the working of
the petitioner during the relevant period as
has been admitted on record, it cannot be
said that the petitioner had been working
continuously as required under the Rules of
2001
so
as
to
be
considered
for
regularization. We may however clarify that
there may be cases where there may be
artificial break which can be ignored, but
the continuous period of one and a half
year of non-engagement in our opinion
cannot be termed as artificial break.

For the reasons recorded above,
as also in the case of Division Bench
judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and
others Vs. Chhiddi and another (supra), we
find that the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge cannot be legally
sustained and it is hereby set aside.

The special appeal is allowed."

7. The Division Bench of this Court in
the State of U.P. Versus Raj Kumar
Srivastava (2017) 4 UPLBEC 3359 also
considered the judgment of learned Single
Judge in first Janardan Yadav case (supra)
and observed as under:

"171. Reference has been made to
the meaning of word of "continuous" and
"continuing" given in the Black's Law
Dictionary, Oxford dictionary of English,
Law Lexicon and Hindi to English
dictionary namely Vidhi Shabdawali of
Government of India.

172. He has further relied upon
the judgement of the learned Single Judge
of this Court in Janardan Yadav (supra)
and
urged
that
the
meaning
of
"continuing in service" as interpreted by
the learned Single Judge may be accepted
to hold that the daily wage Registration
Clerks would be treated to be "continuing
in service" between 29.06.1991 and
09.07.1998, and thus, they would be
covered under the Regularization rules
1998 and their regularization, therefore,
has to be held to be made in accordance
with law.

173. We are afraid to accept the
interpretation given by Sri J.N. Tiwari in
as much as only artificial breaks or short
breaks in service could be ignored for
computing
"continuous
service"
or
holding that the incumbent was in
"continuous service" of the department,
for the purpose of regularization.

174. Further the benefit could
be given only to those who remained in
employment
"continuously"
or
"continuing
in
service"
giving
the
impression that their services were
required continuously though they had
been engaged on daily wages basis. The
persons who had been appointed for few
days in one year and did not work
continuously for the whole one year or
more than that between two relevant
dates from 29.06.1991 till 09.07.1998,
cannot be said to be in "continuous
employment", working on the requirement
of the Registration department. They
cannot be said to be covered by the
meaning of words "continuing in service''
under the Regularization Rules' 1998.
None of the daily wagers before us could
demonstrate otherwise.

175. For the reasons indicated
in the preceding part of this judgement
and those indicated above, we reaffirm
our view that the daily wage registration
clerks
working
in
the
Registration
Department were not entitled to be
regularized under the Regularization
Rules' 1998. The exercise of regularization
4 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Mahaveer Singh & Ors.
1033
undertaken by the State Government in the
year 2011 was an illegal exercise."

8. In the second case of Janardan
Yadav case (supra) the learned Single
Judge has observed as under:

"10. The very object of granting
regularization is to make regular the
appointments which have been made
without following the procedure laid down
in law. The intent is to end uncertainty for
employees
who
are
working
for
inordinately long period. This period is
specified as 10 years in the Constitution
Bench Judgment in Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and
others; (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is this long
length of service which gives justification
for framing rules to regularise the services
or else the engagement being contrary to
recruitment rules itself would be hit by
Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
Continuous working for long periods,
therefore, would be a sine qua non for the
grant
of
relief
of
regularization
in
accordance with the rules. Contention that
merely working on two dates without
necessity
of
continuance
in
between
(excluding artificial breaks), therefore,
cannot be accepted. The petitioner's
working in the present case is not found to
be continuous (there is a gap of almost eight
years). Petitioner's absence also cannot be
ignored by treating it to be artificial break nor
such absence can be ignored on the ground that
it was involuntary and caused by the employers.
His claim for regularization under the rules is,
therefore, not shown to be covered. The
decision of the Divisional Director (Forest)
suffers from no illegality. The writ petition fails
and is, accordingly, dismissed."

9. Having examined the arguments
advanced on behalf of the appellant, we are of
the opinion that the very object of granting
regularization is to regularize the appointments
which are made without following the
procedure laid down in law. Article 16 of the
Constitution of India otherwise contemplates
equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment. Any appointment made contrary
to the rules of recruitment would thus be
impermissible. It is only on account of
continuous working for substantial long that the
concept of regularization steps, which is
manifestation of the concept of equity applied
in the case of daily wagers who are continuing
for long. Unless such working for continuously
long length of time exists the decision to
regularize such employee itself would be
contrary to law. The working for inordinate
long period has been specified as 10 years by
the Supreme Court in Constitution Bench
Judgement in Secretary, State of Karnataka
and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others;
(2006) 4 SCC 1. It is this long length of service
which therefore gives justification for any rules
to be framed to regularize the services or else
the engagement otherwise being contrary to
recruitment rules would be hit by Article 16 of
the
Constitution
of
India.
Unless
the
requirement of continuous working is read into
the rules, the Regularization rule itself would be
open for challenge on the ground of it being
violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of
India. The only exception which can be
continenced is the artificial break or period in
which the employee is prevented from work by
the employer. In the present case, we find
that some of the persons have not worked
continuously for several years. Whether
these persons were prevented from working
or was it a case of artificial break is an
aspect which would require consideration
by the competent authority. In the facts of
the present case, the competent authority in
terms of Rule 2016 is the selection
committee which has to take note of the
period of working. There is however no
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consideration as to whether the period of
absence is attributed to voluntary act on
part of the writ petitioners or they were
prevented from working by any act of the
State authorities. Since on these material
aspects we find that adequate opportunity
to explain the circumstances has not been
given to respondents-petitioners, as such
we are of the view that the claim of the
respondents-petitioners for regularization is
required to be considered afresh, by the
selection
committee,
after
affording
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
writ
petitioners and to explain the period of
absence from working. The chart annexed
in the order impugned (extracted above)
specifies the period of working of the writ
petitioners. It would be open for all the
petitioners to explain the period of absence
and the selection committee would then
take a decision as to whether such period of
absence is attributed to any voluntary act
on the part of the writ petitioners or they
were prevented from working. It will also
have to be seen whether it is a case of
artificial break so as to prevent the action
of the employer in not permitting the
petitioners
to
work?
Appropriate
explanation would be offered within the
period of four weeks. The selection
committee shall accord fresh consideration
to the claim of writ petitioner for
regularization
keeping
in
view
the
observations
made
above.
Such
consideration would be within a period of
three months by passing a reasoned order.

10. Since the judgment of learned
Single Judge omits to factor necessary
aspects involved and also to facilitate a
fresh
consideration
of
appellant
the
judgment of learned Single Judge is set
aside.

11. Consequently, special appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and
order impugned to this appeal is set aside.
The matter stands remitted to the concerned
authority for fresh consideration of cause in
terms of observation made above.
----------