Asherfi Lal v. State of UP and 4 Others

Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4871 of 2024 Petitioner :- Asherfi Lal Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶1Petitioner claims that he was appointed against a short-term vacancy in the year 1993. He was paid salary till 30.06.1994. After that several long drawn litigation had taken place and finally an order was passed on 23.05.2006 granting financial approval to petitioner. Petitioner is claiming regularisation since 1993. This Court in bunch of matters had already passed detailed order on 30.09.2024 in case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 21492 of 2024. Pursuant to said order, State Government had issued a Government Order on

04.10.2024. The claim for regularisation has to be dealt with considering the Government Order of the year 2024.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned has been passed prior to issuance of Government Order which is in teeth of the said Government Order and guidelines laid down in judgment of Vinod Kumar Srivastava (supra) have not been followed. He has relied upon para no. 3 to 10 of the judgement rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Shaheda Bano vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 19679 of 2024, decided on 11.12.2024, which are as under:- "3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1996 as Assistant Teacher L.T Grade and since then he is working continuously. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed in complete violation of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 21492 of 2023) dated 30.09.2024 in which a specific direction has been given by this Court in paragraph -149 of the judgment that the Regional Regularization Committee shall accord hearing to all the candidates whose claim is under consideration for regularization. It is further observe that Committee shall ask all the Management Committee of the Institution to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization. Paragraph-149 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- "149. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the matters which have been remitted back to the Regularization Committee shall be considered in the light of the following directions:

(i) The Regional Regularization Committee shall accord fresh consideration in all remitted matters within a period of six weeks from the date of remand.

(ii) As far as possible, the Regional Regularization Committee shall accord hearing to all the candidates whose claim is under consideration for regularization.

(iii) The Committee shall ask all the Management Committees of the Institution to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization of the candidates within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. In case the documents are not provided by the Management Committees, the Regularization Committee shall proceed against the institution in question under the provisions of Act of 1921.

(iv) The Regularization Committee shall further accord due consideration to provision of Act of 1982 while considering the claim for regularization especially for all those candidates whose case fall under Sections 33-B, 33-C, 33-F, and 33-G.

(v) It is further provided that in view of clarification of Government Order dated 26.09.2024, all the candidates whose matters are under consideration before the Regional Regularization Committee, shall be paid their salary which has been stopped pursuant to the order dated

09.11.2023 within a period as prescribed in the clarification order dated

26.09.2024, till their claims are finally decided.

(vi) Further all the candidates whose claim has not been decided by the Regularization Committee shall be permitted to work.

(vii) It is clarified that in all those cases where the claim for regularization was rejected and the writ petition has been allowed by this Court and the matter has been remitted back for fresh consideration, those candidates shall be entitled for their entire salary till their claim is decided afresh. "

¶4It is argued that taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, a Government Order dated 04.10.2024 was also issued by the State-Government which reads as follows:- महतवपपरर ससखयय-1559/15-05-2024-1601 (696) / 2019 टट०सट० पपषक,

ककषरककमयरगकप,

ववशपषसवचव,

उ०प०शयसन।

सपवयमम,

वशकयवनदपशक(मयधयवमक) उ०प०,

पययगरयज।

मयधयवमकवशकयअनकभयग-5 लखनऊ:

वदनयसक04 अकटपबर, 2024 ववषय:-

मय०उचचनययययलय,

इलयहयबयदममययजजतररटययवचकयस0-21492/2023

ववननदककमयरशटवयसतववअनयबनयमउ०प०रयजयवअनयकपसमबनधमम। महनदय,

ककपययउपयकरकववषयकअपनपपतयसकसयमयनय(1)

तकतटय/ 17264/2024-25, वदनयसक

04.10.2024

एवसपतयसकसयमयनय(1)

तकतटय/17773 / 2024-25,

वदनयसक28.10.2024

कयसनदभरगहरकरनपकयकषकरम,

जजसकपमयधयमसपमय०उचचनययययलय, इलयहयबयद

ममयनजजतररटययवचकयससखयय-21492/2023

ममपयररतआदपशवदनयसक30.09.2024 एवस

03.10.2024

ककपवतएवसररटययवचकयससखयय-907 / 2024

रयकपशवतपयठटबनयम

उ०प०रयजयवअनयममपयररतआदपशवदनयसक07.02.2024

ककपवतससलगकरपपवषत

करतपहहएपकररममअगतरकययरवयहटहपतकआदपश/

वनदरशपदयनवकयपजयनपकयअनकरनध

वकययगययहह। 2-

ववषययसवकतररटययवचकयमममय०नययययलयदयरयवदनयसक30.09.2024 कववसतकत

आदपशपयररतवकययगययहह।उकआदपशममतदररवशककककपवववनयवमतटकररकपपकरर

परववचयरकरनपहपतकमय०नययययलयदयरयमयपदणड/ वदशय-

वनदरशवनगरतवकयगयपहह।

उककपअवतररकसमपककवतककररटययवचकयससखयय-907 / 2024

ममभटपयररतआदपश

वदनयसक07.02.2024 मममय0

नययययलयदयरयतदररवशककककपवववनयवमतटकररकप

पकररपरववचयरकरनपहपतककवतपयवबनदकवनधयररतवकयपगयपहह। 3-

ररटययवचकयससखयय-907 / 2024

रयकपशवतपयठटबनयमउ०प०रयजयवअनयमम

पयररतआदपशवदनयसक07.02.2024 कपपसतर-15

मममय०नययययलयदयरयपयररत आदपश/

वनधयररतववनदवनमनवतहह:- "........15. The Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. shall, therefore, ensure that Regional Selection Committees while rejecting claim of Ad-hoc teachers for regularization must returned findings of fact with reason broadly on following points:

(i) Existence of vacancy on the date of selection.

(ii) Eligibility of candidate selected on the date of selection.

(iii) Approval by the District Inspector of Schools;

(iv) If approval under the orders of this Court, justification for such disapproval or withholding of approval prior to intervention of Courts;

(v) Status of vacancy as on date;..."

¶4"

ररटययवचकयससखयय-21492/2023

ववननदककमयरशटवयसतववअनयबनयमउ०प०

रयजयवअनयममपयररतआदपशवदनयसक30.09.2024 कपपसतर-149 मममय0 नययययलय

दयरयअपनपवनषकषर कयपवतपयदनवकययगययहह,

जजसममतदरर वशककककप

वववनयवमतटकररकपपकररपरववचयरकरनपहपतकमयपदणड/ वदशय-

वनदरशकयवनधयरर

वकययगययहह।पसतर-149

ममपयररतआदपशएवसवनधयररतवदशय-

वनदरशवनमनवततहह:- "......149. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the matters which have been remitted back to the Regularization Committee shall be considered in the light of the following directions:

(i) The Regional Regularization Committee shall accord fresh consideration in all remitted matters within a period of six weeks from the date of remand.

(ii) As far as possible, the Regional Regularization Committee shall accord hearing to all the candidates whose claim is under consideration for regularization.

(iii) The Committee shall ask all the Management Committees of the Institution to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization of the candidates within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. In case the documents are not provided by the Management Committees, the Regularization Committee shall proceed against the institution in question under the provisions of Act of 1921.

(iv) The Regularization Committee shall further accord due consideration to provision of Act of 1982 while considering the claim for regularization especially for all those candidates whose case fall under Sections 33-B, 33-C, 33-F, and 33-G.

(v) It is further provided that in view of clarification of Government Order dated 26.09.2024, all the candidates whose matters are under consideration before the Regional Regularization Committee, shall be paid their salary which has been stopped pursuant to the order dated

09.11.2023 within a period as prescribed in the clarification order dated

26.09.2024, till their claims are finally decided.

(vi) Further all the candidates whose claim has not been decided by the Regularization Committee shall be permitted to work.

(vii) It is clarified that in all those cases where the claim for regularization was rejected and the writ petition has been allowed by this Court and the matter has been remitted back for fresh consideration, those candidates shall be entitled for their entire salary till their claim is decided afresh...?

5.

उलपखनटयहहवकमय०नययययलयकयउकआदपशमयतवदनयक30.12.2000 तक

वनयक तदररवशककककपसमबनधममहह,

नवकवषर2000

कपपशयतवनयक तदररवशककक

हपतकहह।इसससरवतकनमय०नययययलयनपअपनपउकआदपशवदनयसक30.09.2024 कप पसतर-150

ममसपषवकययहह,

जनवनमनवततहह:- "....... 150. The directions issued is only pertaining to the appointments made against short term vacancy/ad hoc appointment upto 30.12.2000. Those cases in which appointment has been made post 2000, the judgment and directions given by this Court would not apply.?

अततइससमबनधमममकझपयहकहनपकयवनदपशहहआहहवकउपयकरकपसतर-3 व4 मम

ववररतररटययवचकयओसममपयररतआदपश/

वनगरतवदशय-

वनदरशकपआलनकममतदरर

वशककककपवववनयवमतटकररकपपकररपरगकर-

दनषककवववपचनयएवससमपपररसकससगत

सयकयककपववशलपषरकपसयरमपररटकपआधयरपरवनयमयनकसयर/

वनषपकएवसवनववरवयद

वनररयलपकरमय०नययययलयदयरयवनयतसमययवजधकपअनतगरतवववनयवमतटकररकप

पकररककनवनसतयररतवकयपजयनपहपतकपदपशकपसमसतमणडलटयससयक वशकयवनदपशकक /

मणडलटयसवमवतयककनआवशयकवदशय-

वनदरशततकयलवनगरतकरनपकयकषकरम। भवदटय, (

ककषरककमयरगकप)

ववशपषसवचव। ससखयय

-1559(1)/15-05-2024-1601 (696) / 2019

टट० सट०

,

तवदनयसक ।

पवतजलवपसमसतससयक वशकयवनदपशक(मय०)

दयरयवशकयवनदपशक(मय०), उ०प०

पययगरयजकनसपचनयररएवसआवशयककययरवयहटहपतकपपवषत।

आजयसप, (

अशनकककमयर)

ससयक सवचव।"

¶5In this view of the matter, it is argued that since the order impugned has been passed by the Regularization Committee in violation of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava (Supra) as well as the Government Order and the same should be quashed. It is argued that though the petitioner is working continuously but his salary is not being paid.

¶6Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7While going through the order dated 18.06.2024 the Court is of the prima facie opinion that neither any opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner nor the Management Committee of the Institution was directed to provide necessary documents which are needed for consideration of regularization of the petitioner.

¶8This fact is also admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶9In this view of the matter, the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, specially in terms of the direction given by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava (Supra) as well as Government Order dated 04.10.2024 within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶10It is made clear that since the petitioner is working continuously, he shall be entitled for his salary till his claim is decided afresh."

¶3In view of said fact, the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by Respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, specially in terms of the direction given by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Srivastava (Supra) as well as Government Order dated 04.10.2024 within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶4It is made clear that since the petitioner is working continuously, he shall be entitled for his salary till his claim is decided afresh. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 V.S.Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad