Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13241 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Kalawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamleshwar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
In identical matter being Writ A No.13185 of 2019 (Sudhir Prakash Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others), this Court has passed following orders today:-
"Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 23703 of 2018 which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 17th December, 2018:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner who is posted as an Officer in the Child Development project has initiated these proceedings claiming regularisation of his ad hoc appointment under the provisions of the 2001 Rules.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent states that subject to all contentions on merit being left open, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation shall be duly attended to and disposed of by the said respondent in accordance with law and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly and without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, this petition shall stand disposed of in light of the statement noted above."
The Director has examined petitioner's claim and his services have been regularized by an order dated 25th April, 2019. This order does not specify as to from what date the order of regularization would become effective. Petitioner apparently approached the authorities for necessary clarification in that regard. The law officer has informed the District Programme Officer, Allahabad vide his letter dated 3rd June, 2019, as per which the regularization of petitioner would be w.e.f. 24.4.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was engaged prior to 30.6.1998 and, therefore, by virtue of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, which got notified on 20th December, 2001, the claim of the petitioner for being regularized, was liable to be considered. It is submitted that merely because the respondents kept the matter pending for so long would not be a ground to deny consideration to petitioner's claim in accordance with the applicable rules.
Learned Standing Counsel states that the grievance of the petitioner would be examined in that regard.
It is prima facie disclosed from a perusal of the records that petitioner was engaged prior to cut-off specified in the rules notified on 20th December, 2001. In case the claim of the petitioner for being regularized under the rules got crystallized, there would be apparently no justification for the authorities not to consider his claim in that regard, particularly when persons junior to him are stated to have been regularized. This aspect of the matter apparently has not been examined.
In the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to examine petitioner's claim for being regularized in accordance with the applicable rules from the date persons junior to the petitioner have been regularized. The mere fact that authorities did not process claim of the petitioner earlier though his claim was covered under the rules for being regularized would not justify denial of benefit of regularization to the petitioner from the previous date. An appropriate decision in that regard would be taken by respondent no. 2 within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The order impugned in the present petition shall remain subject to fresh order to be passed by the authority concerned.
Facts being identical, this writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Ranjeet Sahu