Service Law – Regularisation – On creation of the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship, the appellants were appointed on ad-hoc basis – In 2001, advertisement issued for direct recruitment of Class-III employees – Appellants filed writ petitions – Order passed on
01.08.06 providing that appellants may also apply and their cases shall be considered along with other candidates – However, the said selection process was canceled and the appellants were continued on the ad-hoc basis as per interim order dtd. 01.08.06 – In the mean-time, the appellants represented to the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar for regularisation – District Judge constituted Committee – It recommended regularization by report dtd.12.07.12 – District Judge regularised the services of the appellants – However, the successor in the office of the District Judge inter alia declared that the orders of regularization were non-est – Writ petitions dismissed by the Single Judge – Appellants’ services terminated – Appellants filed writ petition – Dismissed – Held: Report of the Committee is on the basis of the Circular dtd. 05.11.09 issued by the Registrar General of the High Court – Circular shows that all the District Judges were directed that in order to restore the procedure for appointment of Class III & Class IV employees, all such ad-hoc daily wage appointees appointed subsequent to 31.12.01 without following any procedure of law, must cease to work immediately – During the pendency of the petitions, the Rules with regard to regularization were amended which provided cut-off date of 31.12.01– Appellants were appointed prior to 31.12.01 – Change in position of law ought to have been taken into consideration by the High Court – Appellants continued in services from 01.08.06 on account of interim orders passed in writ petitions – As such, when the appellants’ case was considered for regularization by the Committee, the appellants had put in service almost for 12 years – Further, in view of the exception carved out in Umadevi case providing for one-time regularization of employees who completed
10 years or above; the parity of similarly circumstanced employees who were granted benefit in the Sheo Narain Nagar case and the Rules amended in 2016 which provide cut-off date of 31.12.01, the appellants are also entitled for regularization – Appellants be reinstated with continuity in service for all the purposes including terminal benefits, however, not entitled to back wages for the period they are out of employment –Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Circular addressed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Allahabad dated 05.11.09 would show, that all the District Judges have been directed that in order to restore the procedure for appointment of Class III and Class IV employees, all such ad-hoc daily wage appointees, who are appointed subsequent to 31.12.01 without following any procedure of law, must cease to work immediately. The said cut-off date is provided in the said circular inasmuch as the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of daily wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 were notified on 31.12.01. The Committee also found that all the appellants were appointed prior to 31.12.01; they were in continuous service thereafter and their services were satisfactory. In pursuance of the said report the District Judge vide order dated 09.11.12 regularized the services of appellants from 01.06.12. The report of the Committee under the chairmanship of the Additional District Judge is mainly on the basis of the Circular issued by the Registrar General of the High Court dated 05.11.09. By the time when the cases of the appellants for regularization had come up for consideration before the Committee the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Umadevi had already been pronounced. In the said Judgment itself, the Constitution Bench had provided that as a one-time measure the State should take up steps for regularization of the employees, who had rendered the services for a period of more than 10 years. [Paras 14-15][75-A-D, F-H]
1.2 During the pendency of the petitions, the Rules with regard to regularization were amended which provided cut-off date of 31.12.01. Undisputedly, all the appellants were appointed prior to 31.12.01. The change in position of law ought to have been taken into consideration by the High Court. Undisputedly, the appellants were continued in services from 01.08.06 on account of interim orders passed in writ petitions. However, the selection process in which the appellants were permitted to participate, could not see the light of the day, as it was subsequently cancelled in 2008. As such, as a matter of fact, when the appellants’ case was considered for regularization by a Committee under the chairmanship of Additional District Judge, the appellants had, in fact, put in service almost for a period of 12 years. The Committee under the chairmanship of the Additional District Judge had rightly submitted its report dated 12.07.12 and the then District Judge had rightly passed the order of regularization on 09.11.12 granting regularization from 01.06.12. While considering the representation of some of the employees for promotion, the successor in the office of the District Judge could not have annulled the order of the regularization of the appellants which was done after following the proper procedure. The least that was required to be done was to follow the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. The three orders passed by the District Judge dated 16.08.2014 also suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the exception carved out in the case of Umadevi providing for one-time regularization of employees who have completed 10 years or above; the parity of similarly circumstanced employees who have been granted benefit in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and the Rules amended in 2016 which provide a cut-off date of 31.12.2001, the appellants are also entitled for regularization of their services. [Paras 17-19][76-E-H; 77-A-D]
1.3 In the result: (1) the appeals are allowed; (2) the Judgement and order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.4813(S/S) of 2014 and Writ Petition No.5530(S/S) of 2014 as well as Division Bench of the said High Court dated 09.07.2018 in Special Appeal No.440 of 2017 and in Special Appeal No.444 of 2017 are quashed and set aside; and (3) the orders dated 16.08.2014 passed by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar are quashed and set aside and the consequential order of termination dated 23.9.2017 is also quashed and set aside; (4) the order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar regularizing the services of appellants with effect from 01.06.2012 is upheld; (5) Consequentially, the termination of the appellants from their services is quashed and set aside and the appellants are directed to be reinstated forthwith with continuity in service for all the purposes including terminal benefits. However, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the appellants would not be entitled for back wages for the period during which they are out of employment. [Para 20][77-D-H; 78-A]
State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006)
4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 – followed.
Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 432 : [2017] 11 SCR 138 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.