The Allahabad High Court has held that the concept of regularization steps in on account of continuous working for a substantial long time and the only exception is the artificial break or period in which the employee is prevented from work by the employer.

The High Court was considering an intra-court appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment of the Single Judge directing the State to regularise the services of the respondents-petitioners.

The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri said, “It is only on account of continuous working for substantial long that the concept of regularization steps, which is manifestation of the concept of equity applied in the case of daily wagers who are continuing for long. Unless such working for continuously long length of time exists the decision to regularize such employee itself would be contrary to law.”

“The only exception which can be continenced is the artificial break or period in which the employee is prevented from work by the employer”, it added.

C.S.C. Ratan Deep Mishra represented the Appellants while Advocate Vinod Kumar Singh represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioners alleged that they were engaged in the Government Gardens at Agra as Mali on different dates between 1998 to 2001 and had been continuously working except for certain artificial breaks. It was stated that their claim for regularization was covered under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working On Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On Contract In Government Departments On Group "C" and Group "D" Posts (Outside The Purview Of The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016. No consideration was made to the repeated representations of the petitioners.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that the very object of granting regularisation is to regularise the appointments which are made without following the procedure laid down in law. “Article 16 of the Constitution otherwise contemplates equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Any appointment made contrary to the rules of recruitment would thus be impermissible”, it said.

Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others; (2006) wherein the working for an inordinate period has been specified as 10 years. “Unless the requirement of continuous working is read into the rules, the Regularisation rule itself would be open for challenge on the ground of it being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench stated.

It was further observed that the competent authority in terms of Rule 2016 is the selection committee, which has to take note of the period of working. As per the Bench, there was no consideration as to whether the period of absence was attributed to a voluntary act on the part of the writ petitioners or they were prevented from working by any act of the State authorities.

As per the Bench, an adequate opportunity to explain the circumstances had not been given to respondents-petitioners. Thus, allowing the special appeal, the Bench held that the claim of the respondents-petitioners for regularization is required to be considered afresh, by the selection committee, after affording opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and to explain the period of absence from working.

Cause Title: State Of UP And 3 Others v. Mahaveer Singh And 5 Others

Appearance

Appellants: C.S.C. Ratan Deep Mishra, S.C.

Respondents: Vinod Kumar Singh

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Ashwani Kumar MishraJustice Praveen Kumar Giri

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.