Heard Mr. M.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Mahendra Nath Yadav, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.06.2003 (Annexure No.1), whereby the petitioner's case for regularization under Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wager Appointment Group-D Service Rules, 2001 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not in continuation of service from the date of appointment in the same very department.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager in the Forest Department in the year 1985 and worked there till August 1991, thereafter he has been engaged in the Board of Revenue w.e.f. 01.09.1991 on daily wage basis.
Rule-4 of the aforesaid rules provides that any person who was directly appointed on daily wage basis on Group-D post in the Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such, on the date of commencement of rules and possess requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant 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 record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders.
In light of the aforesaid provision, it is stated that the service rendered under the Government department has been acknowledged for the purpose of regularization and since the petitioner had worked in the Government department either it is the Forest department or Revenue Department, his services rendered in those departments are liable to be considered for his regular appointment. He drew attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, whereby the petitioner's working till August, 1991 in the Forest Department has been admitted. It has also been admitted that in the month of September, 1991 the petitioner was engaged in the Board of Revenue. No doubt the petitioner worked in two different departments but under the same very Government, therefore it is stated that the petitioner's whole service either rendered in the Forest department or in the Revenue Department is liable to be considered for the purpose of his regularization under the rules.
On the other hand learned Standing Counsel contended that the requirement of appointment on daily wage basis made before June 29, 1991 in a Government service and its continuity as such, on the date of commencement of the rules means the employee necessarily has to be in continuation of his first appointment and if there is a break in service or change of the department the service rendered in the erstwhile department cannot be acknowledged for the purpose of regularization. It is further stated that the intention of legislature is very much clear. It recognises only the continuous service in the same department from the date of appointment in the said very department.
The petitioner's working in two departments from 1986 to till date is not disputed, it is also not the case of the petitioner that he was transferred from one department to another department. Definitely it is a new service in the Board of Revenue but after going through the provisions of the rules I find that the requirement of continuous service since before June 29, 1991 is to be under the Government department. Though the rules do not specifically provide that it recognise the service of two departments for the purpose of regularization, but I am of the view that once the employee who has been serving in the department of the Government, may be in different departments without break, his service shall be treated as the service under the Government. Therefore, the petitioner has not to be precluded from consideration only for the reasons he served in two different departments.
The intention of legislature is very much clear that it has framed the rules for regularization of those employees who are working on daily wage basis since before June 29, 1991 under the Government, therefore, I am of the view that the service in two different departments does not make any difference for the purpose of regularization and the service of the daily wage rendered in both the departments are liable to be considered for the purpose of regularization subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria. The government itself recognizes the service of employees of one department rendered in another department whenever they are sent on transfer or deputation.
The facts of the case at hand are very much clear that there is no discontinuation in petitioner's service since December, 1986 till date, therefore I hereby quash the order impugned and issue direction to the Government to reconsider the petitioner's case for his regularization under the Regularization Rules, 2001, in the light of the observations made, as above, against the vacancy may be permanent or temporary expeditiously not later than three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 7.12.2012 pp