# State Of U.P. & Ors v. State Public Service Tribunal, U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 194
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-24
- **Bench:** Dilip Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-state-public-service-tribunal-u-p-anr-44235
- **Pages:** 17

## Text

_Characters 0–39,854 of 54,190. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39854 for what follows._

194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 194
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ A No.- 26173 Of 2014

State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Public Service Tribunal, U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners:
Ms. Meenakshi Singh and Sri V.K. Chandel

Counsel for Respondents:
Sri D.S.Pandey, Sri Manish Goyal and Sri Siddharth Singhal
Held

The respondent (Virendra Singh) was not entitled to regularisation under the Circular dated 07.02.1997
as:
He had not worked for 240 days as on 01.01.1993, and
He had not worked continuously up to 07.02.1997.
The respondent made false and contradictory claims:
Earlier admitted employment only from 1995 onwards,
Later falsely claimed employment from 1990 to 1999.
The respondent concealed material facts, including:
Filing and dismissal of the earlier writ petition (17.05.2001),
Rejection of his claim for regularisation in that petition.
Orders dated 18.01.2008 and 21.01.2008 (regularisation) were:
Passed without proper verification,
Based on misrepresentation,
Hence validly cancelled by order dated 17.03.2008.
The order dated 19.03.2008 rejecting representations was:
Based on record verification,
Legally valid.
The Tribunal committed serious errors:
Ignored earlier High Court judgment (2001),
Ignored contradictory pleadings,
Relied on irrelevant material,
Failed to examine evidence properly.
The Tribunal's order dated 07.10.2013 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
A person who obtains relief by concealment and false statements is not entitled to equitable relief.
The writ petition is allowed and:
Tribunal order set aside,
Claim petition dismissed.
8 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs State Public Service Tribunal, U.P. & Anr.
195
Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on respondent for:
Misleading the Department,
Misleading the Court,
Abuse of process of law.

CASE LAW CITED

NONE

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. The petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 7 October 2013 passed by the State
Public Services Tribunal1 in Claim Petition No. 1436 of 2008 that was filed by Virendra Singh,
who has been impleaded as respondent no.2 in this petition. The claim petition was filed for setting
aside the orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008 passed by the Superintending Engineer
and the Executive Engineer respectively posted at Etawah in the Irrigation Department of the State
Government. A further direction that was sought in the claim petition was that Virendra Singh
should be treated to be in continuous service on a class IV post and for payment of arrears of salary
with consequential benefits. The claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal and the orders dated
17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008 were set aside. The Department was also directed to treat
Virendra Singh to be in continuous service on a Class IV post with all consequential benefits.

2. The order dated 17 March 2008 passed by the Superintending Engineer seeks to cancel
the earlier orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008. The former order granted
appointment to Virendra Singh on a class IV post in the work-charge establishment by giving him
the benefit of a Circular dated 7 February 1997 that deals with regularization of daily wage workers
on fulfillment of certain conditions, while the latter order seeks to appoint Virendra Singh in the
regular establishment.

3. The Circular dated 7 February 1997 provides for regularisation of muster roll/daily wage
workers engaged in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department. It inter-alia
provides that muster roll/daily wage employees working in the work-charge establishment who
have worked for more than 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and have also worked regularly upto the
date of issuance of the Circular shall be considered for regularisation on the basis of seniority by a
Committee consisting of the Superintending Engineer as the Chairman, an Executive Engineer
nominated by the Superintending Engineer and three Assistant Engineers.

4. Virendra Singh had earlier filed Writ Petition No.28366 of 19992 with an allegation that
he had been engaged as a daily wage employee on the post of a driver on 6 March 1995 and had
worked upto 12 September 1995, whereafter he was appointed by an order dated 2 September 1998
for three months but he was not permitted to work thereafter. In this said petition, Virendra Singh
also claimed the benefit of regularisation of his services in terms of the Circular dated 7 February
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1997. This petition was dismissed on 17 May 2001 and the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February
1997 was denied to Virendra Singh for the reason that he had not worked for more than 240 days as
on 1 January 1993 nor had he worked continuously upto the date of issuance of the Circular.

5. However, concealing the filing of the first petition and its dismissal on 17 May 2001,
Virendra Singh filed two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 before the
Department claiming the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. It was alleged that he had
worked on daily wage basis on the post of driver in the Department from 1 April 1990 to 18 May
1999. Virendra Singh thereafter filed Writ Petition No.54749 of 20063 with a prayer that he may
be regularized as a Class-IV employee in the Irrigation Department on the basis of the Circular
dated 7 February 1997. This petition was disposed of by the High Court on 13 November 2007
with a direction that the said representations filed by Virendra Singh should be decided.

6. It is as a consequence of the aforesaid direction of the High Court that by order dated 18
January 2008 the services of Virendra Singh were regularised in the work-charge establishment and
by order dated 21 January 2008 he was posted in the regular establishment. However, immediately
on 22 January 2008 when the correct facts were placed, these two orders dated 18 January 2008
and 21 January 2008 were kept in abeyance and ultimately by the order dated 17 March 2008, these
two orders were set aside by the Superintending Engineer. Subsequently, the two representations
dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006 filed by Virendra Singh were examined and rejected by the
Executive Engineer by the order dated 19 March 2008.

7. These orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008 were assailed by Virendra Singh
in the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by order dated 7
October 2013. The Tribunal found that the order dated 17 March 2008 was based on incorrect facts
for the reason that the regularisation of Virendra Singh on the post of Beldar in the work charge
establishment and appointment on the post of Chaukidar in the regular establishment had been
made by orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008 in compliance of the order passed by
the High Court on 13 November 2007 in the second petition filed by Virendra Singh, but the order
dated 17 March 2008 refers to the dismissal of the first petition on 17 May 2001, which petition
related to the post of driver and not to the post of Beldar or Chaukidar. The Tribunal also observed
that the orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008 were not in existence when the High
Court passed the order on 17 May 2001 and so there could have been no occasion for quashing
these two orders pursuant to a judgment rendered by the High Court on 17 May 2001. Insofar as the
order dated 19 March 2008 is concerned, all that has been mentioned by the Tribunal is that it was
apparent that Virendra Singh had worked for more than 240 days and the claim of the Department
that he had not worked for more than 240 days was not correct in view of the letter dated 14
September 2005 written by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer. The Tribunal,
accordingly, set aside the orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008.

8. Ms. Meenakshi Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has
submitted that :
8 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs State Public Service Tribunal, U.P. & Anr.
197
(i) the Tribunal committed a patent illegality in setting aside the order dated 17
March 2008 passed by the Superintending Engineer and the order dated 19 March 2008 passed by
the Executive Engineer as Virendra Singh was not entitled to the benefit of the Circular dated 7
February 1997;

(ii) the Circular dated 7 February 1997 confers benefit of regularisation of services
to a muster roll employee/daily wage employee in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation
Department provided he had worked for more than 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and had
thereafter continuously worked upto the issuance of the Circular on 7 February 1997. In view of the
specific averments made by Virendra Singh in the first petition that he was engaged as a jeep driver
on daily wage basis on 6 March 1995 and continued to work only upto 12 September 1995 prior to
the issuance of the Circular, the claim of Virendra Singh that he was engaged even prior to 1
January 1993 or even before 6 March 1995 on daily wage basis and continued to work as such upto
7 February 1997 was absolutely false and even otherwise, there was no documentary evidence to
substantiate this claim;

(iii) Virendra Singh in his representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006
did not mention the filing of the first petition nor did he state that his claim for regularisation on the
basis of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 had been rejected in that writ petition that was
dismissed on 17 May 2001. Virendra Singh, therefore, concealed material facts in his
representations and obtained the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 by deliberately
stating false facts;

(iv) in the two representations dated on 4 January 2006 and 10 June 2006, Virendra
Singh stated that he had worked as a daily wager on the post of a jeep driver from 1 April 1990 to
18 May 1999 whereas, in fact, in the first petition he specifically stated that prior to 6 March 1995
he was unemployed and was engaged in the Department only on 6 March 1995 on daily wage basis
as a jeep driver and had worked upto 12 September 1995. Thus, the total period of engagement of
Virendra Singh as a daily wager in the Department on the post of jeep driver was from 6 March
1995 upto 12 September 1995 and he could not have been given the benefit of Circular dated 7
February 1997;

(v) the order dated 19 March 2008 was passed by the Executive Engineer after
examining the records and as Virendra Singh did not satisfy the terms of the Circular dated 7
February 1997, the representations were rightly rejected;

(vi) the Tribunal in a very casual manner dealt with the orders dated 17 March
2008 and 19 March 2008. The order dated 17 March 2008 has been completely misinterpreted by
the Tribunal and the order dated 19 March 2008 which was passed after examining the entire
records has been set aside merely on the basis of a note put up by the Executive Engineer, whereas
by a specific order passed in 2006, the claim of Virendra Singh had earlier been rejected;
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(vii) even in the second petition, Virendra Singh did not bring to the notice of the
Court the judgment dated 17 May 2001 by which the first petition filed by him had been dismissed;
and

(viii) Virendra Singh had, therefore, not only misled the Department by filing the
two representations but also misled the Tribunal and the High Court and heavy costs should be
imposed upon Virendra Singh for this act.

9. Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Virendra Singh,
however, defended the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted :

(i) the Tribunal committed no illegality in allowing the claim petition and quashing
the orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008;

(ii) the order dated 18 January 2008 correctly conferred the benefit of the Circular
dated 7 February 1997 upon Virendra Singh by appointing him in the work-charge establishment
and thereafter the order dated 21 January 2008 placed him in the regular establishment;

(iii) Virendra Singh had in the second petition disclosed the filing of the first petition
and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had concealed any material fact from the Court and that it
was incumbent upon the Department to have established that fraud had been committed by
Virendra Singh.

10. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

11. The basic issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether Virendra Singh
who had been engaged as a daily wage employee in the Department was entitled to the benefit of
regularisation under the Circular dated 7 February 1997.

12. This benefit was claimed by Virendra Singh in the first petition that was filed by him
and, therefore, it is necessary to refer to what was stated by Virendra Singh in the said petition.
This petition was filed by Virendra Singh for a direction to the respondents to permit him to work
on the post of a jeep driver in view of the order dated 2 September 1998 issued by the Executive
Engineer. In the said petition, Virendra Singh stated that he possessed a valid driving licence and
being unemployed was in search of a job either in government or private service and when he came
to know in 1995 that a post of jeep driver was vacant in the Irrigation Department at Etawah, he
met the Executive Engineer who informed him that a post of a driver was vacant due to long leave
of Pyare Lal and he could be appointed on the post of jeep driver on daily wage basis. Virendra
Singh further stated that he accepted the offer and was given charge of a jeep on 6 March 1995
whereafter he worked regularly upto 12 September 1995. Subsequently, in the year 1998 he came
to know that a temporary vacancy had been notified so he again met the Executive Engineer for
being provided engagement on daily wage basis and he was given charge of the jeep on 1 January
1998. Thereafter, he worked regularly upto 31 August 1998 without break. Subsequently, an order
8 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs State Public Service Tribunal, U.P. & Anr.
199
dated 2 September 1998 was passed appointing him as jeep driver for a period of three months but
from 1 July 1999 he was not permitted to work. The relevant paragraphs of the said petition are
reproduced below :

"2. That briefly facts stated are that petitioner has a valid Driving Licence for driving
Heavy Four Wheel vehicle such as Trucks, Buses, Jeeps and cars. Being an unemployed youth
petitioner was in search of some job either in Government service or in private services.

3. That during search in the year 1995, he came to know that a post of Jeep
Driver is lying vacant in the office of respondents, as such petitioner personally met with
respondent no.2 in march 1995 and requested him to appoint petitioner on the post of Jeep Driver.
The respondent no.2 told petitioner that the post is not a substantive post and the same is lying
vacant due to long leave of a permanent employee as such petitioner could be appointed on the post
of Jeep Driver on daily wages basis.

4. That being unemployed petitioner accepted the offer of respondent no.2 and
he was given charge of the jeep on 6 March 1995. Since 6 March 1995 to 12 September 1995
petitioner has regularly worked as a Jeep Driver under respondent no.2 on daily wage basis.
In all petitioner worked for 188 days regularly without any break."

5. ....................

6. That thereafter in the year 1998 since January a temporary vacancy was again
notified and as and when the petitioner has come to know about the said vacancy, petitioner at once
met with respondent no. 2 personally and requested him to appoint on the said vacancy of Jeep
Driver. The petitioner was again appointed on the post of Jeep Driver on daily wages basis and he
was given charge of Jeep No. UP 82/8587 on 1 January 1998.

7. That since 1 January 1998 to 31 August 1998 petitioner has regularly worked on
the post of Jeep Driver without any break. ..................

.....................

18. That when on 1 July 1999 petitioner has gone to his duty the respondent no.2 has
not permitted him either to sign the log book of the jeep or to take charge of the jeep".

(emphasis supplied)

13. This petition was dismissed by a detailed order dated 17 May 2001. The Court held that
Virendra Singh had never been given an appointment on a regular basis and even the appointment
order dated 2 September 1998 which he had enclosed indicated that his appointment was for a
period of three months only on temporary basis after which, it was stated, that his services would
automatically come to an end. The Court also noted that he had never been appointed by following
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

any process of recruitment and that he had no right to continue on the post nor was he entitled to
any mandamus to continue on the post. The Court noted that in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents it was also stated that the order dated 2 September 1998 had subsequently been
cancelled on 19 September 1998 since the Executive Engineer was not the competent authority to
issue the appointment order. The claim of Virendra Singh based on a communication for
implementation of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 for regularisation of such daily wage
employees who had completed 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and were continuously working in
the work-charge establishment upto the date of issue of the circular was also rejected as Virendra
Singh had not worked prior to 1 January 1993 on daily wage basis. Accordingly, the benefit of the
said Circular was not given to Virendra Singh and the first petition was dismissed.

14. Virendra Singh filed Special Appeal No. 521 of 2003 to challenge the aforesaid order.
The Special Appeal was dismissed on 4 August 2010 for non-prosecution.

15. It transpires that Virendra Singh thereafter filed two representations dated 4 January
2006 and 10 June 2006 for regularisation of his services. The representation dated 4 January 2006
filed before the Principal Secretary (Irrigation) states that Virendra Singh had been working in the
Lower Ganga Canal, Etawah on a daily wage basis on the post of a driver continuously from 1
April 1990 to 18 May 1999 and to support this plea he enclosed the certificates issued by the then
Executive Engineer showing his working from 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1994, from 6 March
1995 to 12 September 1995 and thereafter from 1 January 1996 upto 18 May 1999. The
representation further states that in view of the Circular dated 7 February 1997, Virendra Singh was
entitled to be appointed in the work-charge establishment but the then Superintending Engineer did
not grant him appointment. In this connection, he stated that the Superintending Engineer in his
communication dated 20 January 2005 had called for report from the Executive Engineer who
made a recommendation for appointment of Virendra Singh on a Class IV post in the work-charge
establishment/regular establishment in view of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 but the
Superintending Engineer constituted a Committee by order dated 10 October 2005 for
consideration of his case for regularisation of his services. However, as this Committee did not
include the Chairman, the Superintending Engineer constituted another Committee by order dated
26 November 2005 but this order was cancelled by a subsequent order dated 23 December 2005. A
request was, therefore, made in the representation to regularise his services in view of the Circular
dated 7 February 1997. The subsequent representation dated 10 June 2006 filed by Virendra Singh
to the Chief Engineer mentions the same facts.

16. What needs to be noticed is that these two representations do not mention the filing of
the first petition in which Virendra Singh had claimed that he started working as a daily wage
employee in the Department on the post of a driver from 6 March 1995 upto 12 September 1995
and thereafter from 1 January 1998 to 31 August 1998, nor did Virendra Singh mention that his
claim for regularisation on the basis of the Circular dated 7 February 1997 had been rejected in the
judgment delivered in the aforesaid writ petition on 17 May 2001.
8 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs State Public Service Tribunal, U.P. & Anr.
201
17. It also needs to be noted that when no decision was taken on the two representations,
Virendra Singh filed the second petition in 2006 with the following reliefs :-

"a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to regularise the petitioner's services as class IV employee in the irrigation department
in work charge establishment or in regular establishment since the date of Government Order dated
07.02.1997;

b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents as to pay salary to the petitioner in the department.

c. issue any writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. to allow the writ petition and award the cost in favour of the petitioner".

18. This second petition was filed claiming regularisation on a Class IV post in the
Irrigation Department. It was stated that Virendra Singh had filed representations dated 4 January
2006 and 10 June 2006 for regularisation of his services on a class IV post but no decision had been
taken. The said petition was disposed of on 13 November 2007 with the following observations :-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.

The petitioner is claiming regularisation in service on the post of class IV employee
in the irrigation department on the basis of the Regularisation of Daily Wagers Rules, 2001 and the
Government Orders issued from time to time the petitioners already submitted his representation in
this regard to the authority concerned i.e. the Executive Engineer on 4.1.2006 and again on
10.10.2006 but no action or decision is taken.

Learned Standing counsel submits that since the representation of the petitioner for
regularisation of service is already pending before the Executive Engineer, the same shall be
considered and decided by the authority concerned.

In view of the submissions made, no fruitful purposes shall be served in keeping the
writ petition pending. It is accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.5
Executive Engineer, Etawah Prakhand, Nichli Ganga Nahar, Etawah to consider and decide the
representation of the petitioner for regularising his services strictly in accordance with the Rules
and the Government Orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months
from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of."
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The order dated 18 January 2008 was then passed by the Superintending Engineer
pursuant to the aforesaid direction that was issued by the High Court on 13 November 2007. The
order mentions that since Virendra Singh had worked as a daily wage employee for more than 240
days as on 1 January 1993 in the work-charge establishment and was working as a daily wager upto
the date of the issuance of the Circular dated 7 February 1997, he was being regularised on the post
of a Beldar in the work-charge establishment from the date he would join the post.

20. A subsequent order dated 21 January 2008 was thereafter issued. This order refers to
the regularisation of Virendra Singh by order dated 18 January 2008 and seeks to appoint him on a
temporary post of a Chaukidar in the regular establishment with posting in the Etawah Division,
Nichali Ganga Nahar, Etawah.

21. Immediately thereafter an order dated 22 January 2008 was issued by the
Superintending Engineer to keep in abeyance the orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January
2008. Virendra Singh then filed Writ Petition No.5711 of 20084 to assail the said order dated 22
January 2008 passed by the Superintending Engineer. This petition was dismissed as being
premature as a final decision had not been taken. However, an observation was made that the
Executive Engineer should take a decision by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of
hearing to Virendrra Singh.

22. The Superintending Engineer then passed a detailed order dated 17 March 2008 for
cancellation of the orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008. After making reference to
the earlier orders dated 18 January 2008, 21 January 2008 and 22 January 2008, the Superintending
Engineer noted that on examination of the records and the files available in the Division it was
clear that the Divisional Office had sent a detailed note dated 20 April 2006 to the Chief Engineer
stating that the appointment of Virendra Singh in the work-charge establishment/regular
establishment would not be justified. The Superintending Engineer also noted that the first petition
earlier filed by Virendra Singh had been dismissed. It is for this reason that the Superintending
Engineer cancelled the earlier orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008.

23. On cancellation of the orders dated 18 January 2008 and 21 January 2008, the
Executive Engineer proceeded to decide afresh the two representations dated 4 January 2006 and
10 June 2006 that had been filed by Virendra Singh for regularisation of his services. This exercise
was undertaken pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court on 13 November 2007 in the
second petition filed by Virendra Singh as the earlier order dated 18 January 2008 deciding the
representations had been cancelled by the Superintending Engineer. The two representations were
decided by the order dated 19 March 2008. The Executive Engineer, after noticing the three writ
petitions that had been filed by Virendra Singh, observed that for deciding the two representations,
the documents submitted by Virendra Singh were required to be verified from the office of the
Division. It was found that for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992, there were no records regarding the
work performed by the daily wagers. However, muster roll was available for 26 days in 1994 and
two months in 1995, and for the months from January 1999 to May 1999, log book was available.
The order mentions that there was no evidence on the record which could substantiate the claim of
8 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs State Public Service Tribunal, U.P. & Anr.
203
Virendra Singh that he had worked for 240 days prior to 1 January 1993 or had worked as a daily
wage employee upto the issuance of the Circular dated 7 February 1997. The order thereafter
considers the documents submitted by Virendra Singh namely, (i) the experience certificate dated
11 September 1995 issued by J.N. Rawat, the then Executive Engineer regarding the work
performed by Virendra Singh as a jeep driver from 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1994; (ii) the
experience certificate given by J.N. Rawat, the then Executive Engineer regarding work performed
by Virendra Singh for 188 days in the year 1995; and (iii) the experience certificate given by A.R.
Fatmi, the then Executive Engineer regarding the work performed by Virendra Singh as a Driver
from 1 January 1996 to 18 May 1999. The Executive Engineer found that copies of these three
certificates were not available in the office nor they appeared to have been issued from the office
and the documents maintained in the office did not also substantiate the claim set up by Virendra
Singh that he had ever worked for 240 days or more in one calender year. In fact, the Government
Orders relating to engagement of workers on muster roll gave power to the Executive Engineer for
engagement only for a period of one month, to the Superintending Engineer for engagement upto
three months and to the Chief Engineer for engagement for any period above that. The certificates
produced by Virendra Singh nor the documents maintained in the office indicated that prior
approval had ever been given to the appointment of Virendra Singh. In such circumstances, the
Executive Engineer concluded that the certificates relied upon by Virendra Singh were of no
benefit to him. The Executive Engineer also noticed that the first petition filed by Virendra Singh
was dismissed on 17 May 2001 and under the Circular dated 7 February 1997 regularisation could
be done only if a daily wage employee had worked for 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and was
continuously working upto the date of issuance of the Circular. The Executive Engineer did not
accept the claim of Virendra Singh that he had worked for 240 days as on 1 January 1993 and had
continuously been working for more than 240 days upto 7 February 1997. The Executive Engineer
also noted that the contention of Virendra Singh that the then Superintending Engineer had
constituted a Committee for regularisation of the services of Virendra Singh but the constitution of
the Committee had been cancelled and the next Committee had not passed any order for
regularisation in the absence of any document on record. The representations dated 4 January 2006
and 10 June 2006 filed by Virendra Singh were, accordingly, rejected by the Executive Engineer by
the order dated 19 March 2008.

24. The claim petition was filed by Virendra Singh before the Tribunal to assail the two
orders dated 17 March 2008 and 19 March 2008 with the following averments :

"That the petitioner, who was having requisite qualification for appointment to
the post of driver was appointed on the post of driver on 1 April 1990 in the office of
Executive Engineer, Lower Ganga Canal, Division, Etawah on daily wage basis and the
petitioner was allowed to work, as such uptil 18 May 1999. The petitioner has worked on daily
wage basis as driver of Jeep No. UTC/1325, UPT/8824, UP75/ 2433, UP75/9256 and UP82/8587.
The petitioner was issued certificates regarding his work and conduct as driver by the respondent
no.5, which make explicit that the petitioner has satisfactorily worked as jeep driver with effect
from 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1994. .................
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

That thereafter the petitioner was also allowed to work as jeep driver on daily
wage/muster roll and he was accordingly paid salary for 188 days for the period 6 March 1995 to
12 September 1995 and a certificate in this regard was duly issued by the Executive Engineer,
Ganga Canal Division, Etawah on 6 December 2005".

(emphasis supplied)

25. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by order dated 7 October 2013 and the relevant
portion is as follows:

"On consideration of arguments, facts and records put up by both the parties, we
found that main contention of the petitioner is that the regularisation of the petitioner on the post of
Beldar and Chaukidar has been made by the opposite parties by impugned orders dated 18.1.2008
and 21.1.2008 (Annexure-25 and 27) respectively and the impugned order dated 17.3.2008 has
been passed in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court's order, which has been passed on 17.5.2001
(Annexure-13) pertaining to the matter for the post of driver and not to the post of Beldar and
Chaukidar, therefore, this impugned order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure-1) is based on incorrect
facts. The main contention of the opposite parties is that petitioner has not worked for 240 days,
therefore, the impugned orders dated 17.3.2008 and 19.3.2008 (Annexure-1 and 2) have been
passed. Now the point for consideration is whether the Hon'ble High Court has decided the
regularisation of the petitioner by its judgment dated 17.05.2001 (Annexure-13) or not? Whether
petitioner has worked for 240 days or not? While considering these two points, we found that
Hon'ble High Court has passed the order on 17.5.2001 (Annexure-13) in writ petition no.28366 of
1999 pertaining to the working of the petitioner on the post of Jeep driver, whereas the
regularisation of the petitioner has been done by the opposite parties later on dates 18.1.2008 and
21.1.2008 (Annexure-25 and 27). The opposite parties while passing the impugned order dated
17.3.2008 (Annexure-1) to cancel the regularistion of the petitioner made on the post of Beldar and
Chaukidar vide orders dated 18.1.2009 and 21.1.2008 (Annexure-25 and 27) has mentioned the
Hon'ble High Court's order dated 17.5.2001. In fact these two orders dated 18.1.2008 and
21.1.2008 (Annexures-25 and 27) were not in existence when Hon'ble High Court has passed its
order on 17.5.2001 (Annexure-13), therefore, there is no question of considering these two orders
by the Hon'ble High Court. Thus impugned order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure-13) is based on
incorrect fact, the correct position is that opposite parties have passed the order dated 18.1.2008
and 21.1.2008 after a gap of seven years of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 17.5.2001
(Annexure-13). .................

So far as the impugned order dated 19.3.2008 (Annexure-2) is concerned, the
reliability of Annexure-8, which is a letter dated 14.9.2005 written by the Executive Engineer to the
Superintending Engineer clearly proves that petitioner has performed his duties more than 240
days, therefore, his regularisation on the post of Beldar and Chaukidar done by the opposite parties
is correct and the arguments of the opposite parties that he has not worked for 240 days is not
sustainable in the light of these facts mentioned in Annexure-8, which is a letter written by the
Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer on14.9.2005. ..................."
8 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs State Public Service Tribunal, U.P. & Anr.
205
26. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether Virendra Singh, who had been
working as a daily wager in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department, fulfilled
the conditions set out in the Circular dated 7 February 1997 for regularisation of his services.

27. In order to get the benefit of the said Circular, it was incumbent upon Virendra Singh to
have substantiated that he had worked as a daily wager for more than 240 days as on 1 January
1993 in the work-charge establishment and thereafter continuously as a daily wage employee upto
the date of issuance of the Circular on 7 February 1997.

28. The averments made by Virendra Singh in the first petition, therefore, assume
importance. Virendra Singh specifically stated in the said writ petition that he held a valid driving
licence and being an unemployed youth was in search of a Government job and when he came to
know in 1995 that a post of jeep driver was vacant in the Irrigation Department, he met the
Executive Engineer who informed him that a post of driver was lying vacant and he could be
appointed on daily wage basis. Virendra Singh specifically stated that being unemployed, he
accepted the offer and was given charge of a driver on 6 March 1995 and he worked regularly as a
jeep driver on daily wage basis upto 12 September 1995. After that, he was again, on 1 January
1998, engaged as a jeep driver on daily wage basis and he worked regularly upto 31 August 1998.
This clearly establishes that prior to 6 March 1995, Virendra Singh was unemployed and was not
working on daily wage basis in the work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department. This
petition was dismissed on 17 May 2001 and the claim of Virendra Singh on the basis of the the
Circular dated 7 February 2016 was also rejected for the reason that he was not working as a daily
wage basis in the work-charge establishment as on 1 January 1993 and in fact had been engaged
only on 6 March 1995. Virendra Singh filed Special Appeal No.521 of 2003 which was also
dismissed in default on 4 August 2010.

29. What appears is that in order to avail of the benefit of the Circular dated 7 February
1997 despite his claim having been rejected in the first petition, Virendra Singh filed a
representation dated 4 January 2006 before the Principal Secretary (Irrigation) alleging that he had
worked on daily wage basis in the Lower Ganga Canal continuously from 1 April 1990 to 18 May
1999 on the post of a driver and for this purpose, he enclosed certain certificates said to have been
issued by the then Executive Engineer showing his working from 1 April 1990 to 30 September
1994, from 6 March 1995 to 12 September 1995 and thereafter from 1 January 1996 upto 18 May
1999. On the basis of these certificates, Virendra Singh claimed regularisation on the basis of the
Circular dated 7 February 1997. The subsequent representation dated 10 June 2006 submitted to the
Chief Engineer also mentions the same facts. There is no manner of doubt that the averments made
by Virednra Singh in the aforesaid two representations that he had worked as a daily wager from 1
April 1990 to 18 May 1999 continuously on the post of a driver were false and made with the sole
object of getting the benefit of Circular dated 7 February 1997. Virendra Singh in the first petition,
as noted above, had come out with a categorical case that prior to 6 March 1995 he was
unemployed though he had a valid driving licence. He also specifically stated that he had worked
on daily wage basis only from 6 March 1995 upto 12 September 1995 and thereafter from 1
January 1998 to 31 August 1998. What is important to note is that in the representations, Virendra
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Singh did not disclose to the Department that he had filed the first petition and that the said
petition had been dismissed on 17 May 2001. He also did not disclose that his claim for
regularisation under the Circular dated 7 February 1997 had been rejected by the High Court
in its judgment dated 17 May 2001 for the reason that he was not working on daily wage
basis on 1 January 1993 as he had been engaged as a daily wage employee only on 6 March
1995 as a jeep driver. Even in the second petition that Virendra Singh subsequently filed in
which a direction was issued to decide the two representations dated 4 January 2006 and 10
June 2006, he did not place on record the judgment delivered by the High Court on 17 May
2001 in the first petition. What also needs to be noticed is that though a prayer had been
made in the writ petition for regularising his services as a Class IV employee in the Irrigation
Department in the work-charge establishment/regular establishment in view of the Circular
dated 7 February 1997, what was submitted before the High Court, as is clear from the
judgment, is that his services should be regularised under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily
Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001.

30. The Superintending Engineer, to ensure compliance of the directions of the High
Court, issued the order dated 18 January 2008. This order merely refers to the order dated 13
November 2007 passed by the High Court in the second petition filed by Virendra Singh and
then mentions that since he had worked for 240 days as a daily wager as on 1 January 1993
in the work-charge establishment and had been regularly working as a daily wage employee
upto the date of issuance of the Circular dated 7 February 1997, he was being regularised on
the post of Beldar in the work-charge establishment.