Heard Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the impugned order dated 25.06.2014, passed by the opposite party No.3, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularize the services of the petitioner in pursuance of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group-D Posts Rules, 2001.
(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to pay the minimum of pay-scale to the petitioner with immediate effect in the interest of justice."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, District-Faizabad rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 25.06.2014 wherein this is admission on the part of the opposite parties that the petitioner has discharged his duties from March 1991 to June 1991, September 1991 to June 1992, August 1992 to October 1992, December, 1992 to June 1994, August 1994 to April 1996 and December 2000 to March 2004.
As per the opposite parties, the petitioner has not discharged his continuous duties with effect from the cut off date i.e. 29.06.1991 till 21.12.2001, the date of commencement of Rules, so his claim has been rejected. The relevant Rules are known as U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group-D Posts Rules, 2001 (here-in-after referred to as the "Rules, 2001").
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the decision of this Court rendered in re: Janardan Yadav vs. State of U.P. reported in [2008 (1) ADJ 60] referring para-8, whereby this Court has held that if any daily wager has been engaged prior to cut off date i.e. 29.06.1991 so indicated in the Rules, 2001 and was working on the date of commencement of Rules, 2001 i.e. 21.12.2001, the services of such employee should be regularized in terms of Rules, 2001. Therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was admittedly discharging his duties in the month of March, 1991 and he was also discharging his duties on 21.12.2001, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was worth to be regularized in terms of Rules, 2001.
However, Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that so far as the judgment of this Court in re: Janardan Yadav (supra) is concerned, he has nothing to say but the petitioner has not discharged his duties since May, 1996 till November, 2000 i.e. more than four years period and that period may be considered as artificial break, however, for the remaining period of service rendered by the petitioner there are some artificial break.
Sri Shukla has further submitted that however such regularization rules has again been amended in the year 2016 wherein the cut off date has been fixed as 21.12.2001, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner may be considered under the amended Rules, 2016.
Be that as it may, para-8 of the judgment in re: Janardan Yadav (supra) is very clearly providing that if any employee has engaged as a daily wager prior to cut off date i.e. 29.06.1991 and is serving as daily wager on 21.12.2001, the date of commencement of the Rules, 2001, his services should have been regularized in terms of regularization Rules, 2001. For convenience, para-8 of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced here-in-below:-
"8. The said stand is contrary to the Rules and it amounts to reading certain words in Rule 4(1) which is not provided therein by the Rule framing authority. The rule framing authority has not framed the aforesaid Rules in manner as are being read by the respondents. Since the Rules are applicable only to daily wage employees, the Rules framing authority was aware that such employee could not have worked continuously throughout and, therefore, has clearly provided that the engagement must be before 29.6.1991 and he is continuing as such on the date of commencement of the Rules. If a daily wage engagement has been made before 29.6.2001 and was continuing on 21.12.2001, meaning thereby the daily wage engagement remained necessity of the department or the requirement thereof for more than 10 years, for such a person only, the benefit of regularization under 2001 Rules has been provided and it nowhere requires further that the incumbent must have worked continuously from the date of initial engagement till the commencement of these Rules and to read these words would amount to legislation, which is not permissible in law. While interpreting the statute, it is well settled that neither any word shall be added nor be subtracted but if a plain reading of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the same has to be followed as such. This Court does not find any ambiguity in Rule-4(1) providing as to which kind of persons would be entitled for regularization and it nowhere requires that the incumbent must have worked throughout from the date of initial engagement till the date of commencement of the Rules."
It has been not disputed at the bar that the judgment of this Court in re: Janardan Yadav (supra) has not been quashed or modified by the Division Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, that judgment is still a good law governing the field. Further, the services of identically placed employees have been regularized following the decision of this Court in re: Janardan Yadav (supra), therefore, on the basis of principles of parity the services of the petitioner may be regularized in terms of the directions being issued in re: Janardan Yadav (supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.06.2014, passed by the opposite party No.3, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to regularize the services of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and provide him all consequential service benefits which are admissible for regular employees of the department.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]