Recently Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya of Allahabad High Court at Lucknow delivered his Judgment in a matter of Regularization.
Allahabad High Court has directed the Government to reconsider the plea of regularization of three employees, working as Seasonal AWBN.
In the instant case, the petitioners have stated that they were appointed to the post of Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis in Sultanpur. They have stated that the respondents have rejected their appointment to the regular post of AWBN.
A petition was filed by them before the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow and vide order dated 08.11.2011 the District Magistrate was directed to consider their case.
Their claim was considered by the District Magistrate but was rejected by order dated 31.12.2011. The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow quashed the order dated 31.12.2011 that was challenged before it and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the case of the petitioners.
As there were no steps taken by the authorities, contempt proceedings were initiated. The authorities only took up the case of the petitioners after the commencement of contempt petition.
During the meeting held on 03.11.2018 under the chairmanship of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), the committee considered the case of the petitioner, but it was rejected. The committee again considered the claims of the petitioner during the meeting held on 31.11.2018.
Meanwhile, a Special Appeal was filed by the respondent state which was dismissed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court at Lucknow.
After the appeal was dismissed, a meeting of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), dated 18.01.2019 was held where the claim of the petitioners was rejected. Based on the minutes of the meeting held on 18.01.2019 an order was passed by the District Magistrate and Surendra Bahadur Singh was regularized, however, the claims of Shiv Nandan Prasad Pandey, Musheer Ahmad and Ravindra Nath were rejected.
Aggrieved by the whole abuse of process and subsequent delays in the case, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow.
Proceeding Before the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow
Arguments raised by the counsel of the petitioners.
The counsel for the petitioners stated that the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner was based on erroneous and untenable grounds. He submitted that the correct interpretation of Rule 5 of the UP District Offices (Collectorates) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980 has not been made while passing the impugned order.
He further submitted that if the Rule 5 of the UP District Offices (Collectorates) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980 will be considered in the light of correct interpretation then the claims of the petitioners will be valid.
It was added that as per Rule 5 the petitioners were eligible for regular appointment. It was also submitted that the impugned order did not conform with the order passed by Allahabad high court in Jiv Kumar Tiwari case.
Arguments raised by the Respondent State.
The counsel for the respondent state argued that in light of the amendment to Rule 5, the order passed by the Magistrate was correct. It was stated that as the petitioners did not have the experience of 4 fasli years in the capacity of Seasonal AWBN, their claim to the regular appointment was rejected.
He further submitted that because the order dated 25.05.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur was not challenged in the present petition, relief cannot be granted to the petitioners.
The reasoning of the Court
The Court observed that the only reason given by the Magistrate while rejecting the petitioners claim was that they had not rendered their services in the capacity of Seasonal AWBN for at least four fasli years as is the requirement under the amended Rules 5.
Hon’ble Court went through various documents put before it and noticed that the petitioners joined the service as Seasonal AWBN, but from time to time, they were assigned to various other duties as well. They were assigned to work as clerk, bidder, typist etc. the counsel for the petitioner has stated that their appointment to these posts should also be considered when counting their experience as AWBN.
The Court also examined the scope of Rule 5. It held that 30% of category ‘A’ posts given in the said Rule 12 is to be filled in by way of selection through the Selection Committee from amongst the Seasonal AWBN does not curtail the right of the petitioners to be appointed as regular employees to other ministerial posts as well.
Further the Court held that the petitioners should also be considered for other ‘A’ posts mentioned in the ‘Rule 5’ and that the work done by them in other duties apart from the services rendered by them as Seasonal AWBN should also be considered.
While considering the argument that the order dated 25.05.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur was not challenged, the Court opined that as per its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court can always mould the relief in the interest of justice.
The Decision of the Court
The Court directed the Selection Committee/District Magistrate, Sultanpur to consider the plea of petitioners for regular appointment in terms of Rule 5 of the Service Rules. The Court also directed them to consider the observation made by it in the present case.
Title: Shivnandan Prasad Pandey & 2 Others vs The State Of UP
Case No.: SERVICE SINGLE No. – 24928 of 2019
Date of Order: 22.09.2020
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Advocates: Counsel for Petitioner:- Manish Singh; Counsel for Respondent:- CSC.