Sunil Kumar Seth v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 4 "AFR" Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23736 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Seth Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Transfer From Lucknow Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by order dated

17.5.2010 passed by the Executive Engineer Construction Division-I Public Service Department, Shahjahanpur, whereby his claim for regular appointment at par with one Raghvendra Singh as Supervisor Diploma Holder has been rejected. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner claimed to have been enrolled as daily-wage Supervisor Diploma Holder with Public Works Department in the year 1988 in similar manner, in which one Raghvendra Dixit was engaged as daily wager in 1984. Vide order dated 10.07.1991, the Chief Engineer of Public Works Department decided that appointments made after 1.1.1990 on daily-wage basis should be placed before him and all those who have been appointed as such even previously, should not be continued after renewal of their service came to an end. As a consequence to the aforesaid order, Executive Engineer passed an order on 28.12.1991 to the effect that no such daily-wage employee should be appointed after 1.1.1990 and any such appointment if has been made, the same should be immediately terminated and in respect of old daily-wage employees a muster-roll should be issued only after getting their names entered in the office of Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department at Shahjahanpur. As a consequence to the above order petitioner was asked not to continue on 29.01.1992 even though he was appointed/engaged in the year 1984 on a daily-wage basis and was continuing in the department on that date. Petitioner immediately filed a petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Def) No. 9085 of 1992, in which an interim order was passed with following directions on 20.2.1992: "Admit. Notice on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 5 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. He may file counter affidavit within six weeks. The petitioner will have seven days thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. On the counter affidavit the opposite parties will specifically indicate the relevance of the cut off date 1.1.90 for the action indicates to be taken in the annexure no. 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager supervisor, being a diploma holder. In pursuance of annexure no. 5 to the writ petition the petitioner states that his services have been terminated by opposite party no. 4 with effect from 29.01.1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner's service have been terminated in pursuance of annexure no. 5, whereby Engineer in Chief had directed that after 1.1.1990 no new appointment should be made and if any such appoint has been made they should be terminated. The submission of the learned counsel further is that after by a letter dated 18.8.90 contained in annexure no. 4. Engineer in Chief has specifically provided that after 1.8.90 contained in annexure no. 4 Engineer in Chief has specifically provided that after 1.8.90 the Diploma holders may be appointed on daily wages of Rs. 35/-per day and they will be designated as Daily wager supervisor . This letter of 18th of August, 1990 is clearly after 1.1.1990 and accordingly the services of the petitioners were not requird to have been terminated. The argument prima facie appears to be tenable. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner will be allowed to continue in services on the same status as daily wager provided work and post is available and one Raghuvendra Dikshit who was appointed as daily wager supervisor has been allowed in service. " (emphasis added) The said writ petition subsequently stood disposed of in terms of interim order on 13th January, 2016 by S.L. Sarraf, J. which is reproduced hereunder: "Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after obtaining Diploma in civil Engineering from Government Polytechnic was appointed as Apprentice Junior Engineer/Supervisor. The opposite parties in a very illegal manner terminated the service of the petitioner to accommodate the persons of their choice although the work and post was available. He further submits that one Raghvendra Dikshit, who was appointed as daily wager Supervisor has been allowed to continue in service. This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed a detail interim order ated 29.2.1992 and the learned counsel for the parties stated that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the interim order. 2 of 16 Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the above statement of the counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 20.2.1992 and the opposite parties are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner when similarly situated Raghuvendra Dikshit has been allowed to work. " Petitioner immediately represented the authority and then Executive Engineer wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer on 08th February, 2010 requesting for necessary guidelines to enable him to pass order in compliance of order of High Court. The Secretary required from the Chief Engineer about parity/disparity in the appointment and status of Sunil Kumar Seth, namely, petitioner with that of Raghvendra Dixit whose services were regularized so as to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of order passed by the Court on 13th January, 2010. The Executive Engineer in turn submitted a report to the Joint Secretary of Public Works Department, Government of U.P. Lucknow on 30th March, 2010 in following terms: सेवा में, संयुक्त सचिव लोक निमाण अुभाग-7, उ०प्र० शास, लखऊ। निवषय-मा० न्यायालय लखऊ खण्डपीठ लखऊ द्वारा रिरट याचिका सं0-1184 (एस०एस०)/92. सुील कुमार सेठ बाम उ०प्र० सरकार एवं अन्य में पारिरत आदेश निद० 13.01.2010 के क्रम में निदशा निद>श निदये जाे के सम्बन्ध में। संदभ-शास का पत्रांक 1085/23-7-2010 निद० 19.03.2010 महोदय, उक्त निवषयक प्रकरण में श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत एवं श्री सुील कुमार सेठ में समाता/असमता का निववरण निम् प्रकार है:-

¶1श्री सुील कुमार सेठ चिडप्लोमा होल्डर, सुपरबाइजर के पद पर मस्टर रोल पर निदांक

01.09.1988 से निद० 29.01.1992 तक कायरत रहे।

¶2अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता नि०ख०, लो०नि०निव०, ०नि०निव०, शाहजहाँपुर के पत्रांक 3722/ ई0-5 निद० 28.12.1991 (छायाप्रचित संलग्न) द्वारा समस्त सहायक अभिभयन्ताओं को निद>श 3 of 16 जारी निकये गये थे निक निद० 01.01.1990 के बाद कोई या कमारी े रखा जाये, इस पत्र के निगत निकये जाे के उपरान्त केवल श्री सुील कुमार सेठ को आगे मस्टर रोल जारी हीं निकया गया।

3. जबनिक श्री सुील कुमार सेठ एवं श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत दोो ही

01.01.1990

से पूव मस्टर

रोल पर कायरत थे।

( छायाप्रचित संलग्न

)

¶4श्री सुील कुमार सेठ निद० 01.01.1990 से पूव सेवारत होे के कारण निद०

29.01.1992 के बाद मस्टर रोल जारी  निकये जाे के कारण श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत का आधार माते हुए एक वाद स० 1184/एस०एस०/92 दायर निकया जिजस पर मा० उच्च न्यायालय लखऊ े निद० 20.02.1992 को अन्तरिरम आदेश पारिरत निकया निक काय और पद उपलब्ध हो तो इन्हें भी श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत की तरह दैनिक वेत पर काय करे निदया जाये। परन्तु रिरट याचिका निवाराधी होे के कारण निवभाग द्वारा इन्हें सेवा में हीं लिलया जा सका।

¶5श्री सुील कुमार सेठ द्वारा दायर रिरट निपटीश सं० 1184/एस०एस०/92 का अन्तिन्तम निस्तारण निद० 13.01.2010 को कर निदया गया। जिजसमें उल्लेख निकया गया है निक निद०

20.02.1992 को पारिरत अन्तरिरम आदेश को आधार माते हुए रिरट निपटीश का निस्तारण निकया जाता है तथा निवपH को निद>भिशत निकया जाता है निक याी का प्रकरण श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत की तरह इके भी क्लेम पर निवार निकया जाये।

¶6शास की ीचित के अुसार श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत को उ०प्र०, लो०नि०अु०-4 के आदेश सं० 2413/23-4-06-5 डी० निद० 15.07.2006 एवं प्रमुख अभिभयन्ता ३०५०, लॉ०नि०निव०, लखऊ के कायालय ज्ञाप सं० 6073/ई०डी०/5319 ई०डी०/06 निद०

17.07.06 द्वारा निवनियनिमत कर निदया गया।

¶7इस प्रकार श्री सुील कुमार सेठ को श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत की तरह काय पर ले लिलये जाे से समाता एक हो जाये तथा मा० न्यायालय के आदेशों का भी अुपाल हो जायेगा।

¶8प्रान्तीय खण्ड, लो०नि०निव०, शाहजहाँपुर द्वारा जारी ज्येष्ठा सूी के अुसार श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत एवं श्री सुील कुमार सेठ दोों निद० 01.01.1990 से पूव कायरत होे से पूव कायरत होे से समाता की पुनिi होती है। 9-इस प्रकार इस याचिका के निवरूद्ध कोई भी निबन्दु पोषणीय प्रतीत हीं होता है। संलग्नक-उपरोक्तुसार अचिधशासी अभिभयंता निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि०निव० शाहजहांपुर (emphasis added) After the above report was submitted, the executive engineer and law officer of the department had appeared before the concerned Secretary of the State Government on 12.5.2010 and got him perused all the relevant papers and after perusing the same the Secretary on a telephone conversation had asked the competent officer to pass suitable order in compliance of the order of High 4 of 16 Court. The Chief Engineer referring the above wrote following letter again in the Secretary that he was sending concerned competent appointing authority namely, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division 1st of PWD, Shahjahanpur to explain difference in the appointments of two employees' namely Sunil Kumar Seth and Raghvendra Dixit for passing reasoned order. The copy of the letter was also marked to the concerned executive engineer with a direction to pass order citing this fact that for want of post and work Sunil Kumar Seth could not be counted. The said letter is reproduced hereunder: "सेवा में. संयुक्त सचिव, लो०नि० अुभाग-7 उ०प्र० शास, लखऊ। निवषयः- मा० उच्च न्यायालय, लखऊ खण्डपीठ, लखऊ द्वारा रिरट याचिका सं0-1184 (एस०एस०)/92 सुील कुमार सेठ बाम उ०प्र० सरकार एवं अन्य में पारिरत आदेश निद०

13.1.2010 के कम में निदशा निद>श निदये जाे के संबंध में। संदभः शास का पत्र सं0-1968/23-7-10 निद० 11.5.2010 महोदय, कृपया उपरोक्त निवषयक प्रकरण में शास के संदर्भिभत पत्र का अवलोक करे की कृपा करें। शास से प्राप्त निद>शों के अुपाल में निद० 12.05.2010 को श्री जागेश्वर सिंसह, अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, निमाण खण्ड-1. लो०नि०निव०. शाहजहाँपुर एवं इस कायालय के निवचिध अचिधकारी राम सिंसह आपके समH सुसंगत अभिभलेखो सनिहत उपन्तिस्थत हुए थे और सुसंगत अभिभलेखों का आपको अवलोक कराया गया था। आप द्वारा प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में सुसंगत अभिभलेखों के आधार पर रिरट याचिका सं0-1184 एस०एस०/92 सुील कुमार सेठ बाम उ०प्र० राज्य एवं अन्य में पारिरत अंचितम निणय निद० 13.01.2010 के कम में श्री सुील कुमार सेठ के प्रत्यावेद को नियमाुसार निस्तारिरत निकये जाे के वाता के दौरा निद>श निदये है। लोक निमाण निवभाग में तुथ श्रेणी / दैनिक वेत फील्ड कर्मिमयों के नियुनिक्त अचिधकारी / सHम अचिधकारी, अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता स्तर के अचिधकारी है। इसलिलए अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि०निव०. शाहजहाँपुर को याी श्री सुील कुमार सेठ के मामलें से तथा श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत के मामलें के अन्तर को स्पi करते हुए, सकारण आदेश पारिरत करे हेतु भेजा जा रहा है। अतः उपरोक्त वर्भिणत तथ्यों एवं परिरन्तिस्थचितयों में शास से अुरोध है निक उक्त आख्या को निवार कर अभिभलेख में लेे की कृपा करें। 5 of 16 भवदीय ह० अपठीय (ए०के० सिंसन्हा)

13.5.2010 मुख्य अभिभयन्ता (ई०-3) लो०नि०निव०, लखऊ

¶1प्रचितलिलनिप मुख्य अभिभयन्ता, बरेली Hेत्र, लो०नि०निव०, बरेली को उपरोक्ताुसार कायवाही कराये जाे हेतु प्रेनिषत।

¶2अधीHण अभिभयन्ता, बरेली वृत्त, लो०नि०निव०, बरेली को उपरोक्ताुसार कायवाही कराये जाे हेतु प्रेनिषत।

¶3अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि०निव०, शाहजहाँपुर को इस निद>श के साथ प्रेनिषत निक आप प्रश्नगत रिरट याचिका में पारिरत निणय निद० 13.01.2010 के क्रम में खण्डीय अभिभलेखों के अुसार एवं अवमाा याचिका सं०-3228(सी)/1992 में निवपHी श्री जी०सी० गग>श, तत्काली अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि०निव०, शाहजहाँपुर एवं श्री ए०के० जै तत्काली अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, प्रान्तीय खण्ड, लो०नि०निव०, शाहजहाँपुर द्वारा दालिखल निकये गये प्रचितशपथ पत्र में अंनिकत तथ्यों के आधार पर श्री सुील कुमार सेठ के मामले से तथा श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत के मामले के अऩ्तर को स्पi करते हुए सकारण याी के प्रत्यावेद को निस्तारिरत करा सुनिचि|त करें। जिजससे असमंजस एवं अवमाा की न्तिस्थचित उत्पन्न  हो पाये। मुख्य अभिभयन्ता (ई०-3) लो०नि०निव०, लखऊ" (emphasis added) It is soon-after the above instructions were issued under the note addressed to the Executive Engineer passed an order on 17th May, 2010, which is under challenge. It is necessary here also to reproduce the order dated 17th May, 2010, which runs as under: कायालय ज्ञाप मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद की खण्डपीठ लखऊ द्वारा रिरट याचिका सं० 1184/एस०एस०/92) सुील कुमार सेठ वाम उ०प्र० सरकार व अन्य में पारिरत आदेश 6 of 16 वि दनांक‌13.01.2010‌ममं‌वቕ्भि णत‌कर‌प्र मखु ‌अणि भयन् ता‌व् यवस् थापन‌"ग"‌वगर‌लो०वि न०वि व०‌लखनऊ के ‌पत्र ांक‌481‌व् यग‌शा०/3‌व् यग‌(3)‌/‌10‌वि द०‌13.05.2010‌ममं‌वि दये‌गये‌वि नदkशानुसार वि नस् तारि रत‌करते‌हुए‌वि नदkणि शत‌वि कया‌गया‌है‌वि क‌श्र ी‌राघवेन् द्र ‌दीधि +त‌व‌श्र ी‌सुनील‌कु मार‌प्र करण‌ममं समानता‌के ‌अनुसार‌कायरवाही‌की‌जाये,‌के ‌अनपु ालन‌ममं‌अणि भलेखों ‌के ‌परी+णोपरान् त‌श्र ी‌राघवेन् द्र दीधि +त‌सुरपवाइजर‌धि डप् लोमा‌होल् डर‌एवं‌श्र ी‌सनु ील‌कु मार‌सेठ‌सुरपवाइजर‌धि डप् लोमा‌होल् डर‌ममं वि नम् न‌अन् तर‌प्र काश‌ममं‌आये‌ह:ै -

1.‌श्र ी‌राघवेन् द्र ‌दीधि +त‌सुरपवाइजर‌धि डप् लोमा‌होल् डर‌की‌वि वभाग‌ममं‌दविै नक‌वेतन‌पर‌वि नयविु क्त ‌धि तणि थ

17.09.84‌ह।ै ‌जबवि क‌श्र ी‌सुनील‌कमार‌सेठ‌सुपरवाइजर‌धि डप् लोमा‌होल् डर‌की‌वि वभाग‌ममं‌दविै नकु वेतन‌पर‌वि नयविु क्त ‌की‌धि तणि थ‌जनपद‌की‌ज् येष्ठ ता‌सचू ी‌के ‌अनुसार‌19.10.89‌ह।ै

2.‌श्र ी‌राघवेन् द्र ‌दीधि +त‌सुपरवाइजर‌धि डप् लोमा‌होल् डर‌की‌सेवाये‌दविै नक‌वेतन‌पर‌कायर‌एवं‌पद‌की उपलब् धता‌तथा‌वरि रष्ठ ता‌के ‌अनुसार‌वि नरन् तरता‌बनी‌रही‌है‌जबवि क‌श्र ी‌सनु ील‌कु मार‌सेठ‌की‌सेवा‌ममं पद‌की‌अनपु लब् धता‌तथा‌कवि नष्ठ ता‌के ‌अनुसार‌वि द०‌29.01.1992‌के ‌पfात‌इन् हमं‌नहीं ‌रखा‌जा सका‌जैसा‌वि क‌तत् कालीन‌अधि धशासी‌अणि भयन् ता,‌श्र ी‌ए०के ०‌जैन‌अधि धशासी‌अणि भयन् ता‌प्र ान् तीय खण् ड,‌लो०वि न०वि व०.‌शाहजहाएपुर‌एवं‌श्र ी‌डी०सी०‌गगkश‌अधि धशासी‌अणि भयन् ता‌वि नमारण‌खण् ड-1, लो०वि न०वि व०,‌शाहजहाएपुर‌ने‌अवमानना‌याधि चका‌सं0‌3228‌(सी0)/1992‌ममं‌प्र धि तशपथ‌पत्र ‌ममं भी‌स् पष‌वि कया‌है,‌वि क‌पद‌व‌कायर‌उपलब् ध‌न‌होने‌के ‌कारण‌श्र ी‌सनु ील‌कु मार‌सेठ‌को‌दविै नक‌वेतन पर‌रखा‌जाना‌सम् भव‌नहीं ‌था‌।

3.‌श्र ी‌राघवेन् द्र ‌दीधि +त‌सुरपवाइजर‌धि डप् लोमा‌होल् डर‌की‌वि नरन् तर‌सेवाये‌होने‌के ‌फलस् वरू प‌उनका वि ववि नयवि मतीकरण‌वि वभाग‌द्व ारा‌माह‌7/2006‌ममं‌वि कया‌जा‌चुका‌ह।ै ‌जब‌वि क‌श्र ी‌सनु ील‌कु मार‌सेठ की‌दविै नक‌वेतन‌की‌सेवाओ‌ं ममं‌व् यवधान‌होने‌के ‌कारण‌इनके ‌वि ववि नयवि मतीकरण‌पर‌वि वचार‌नहीं ‌वि कया जा‌सका। अतः‌उपरोक्त ‌से‌स् पष‌है‌वि क‌श्र ी‌सुनील‌कु मार‌सेठ‌तत् कालीन‌सुपरवाइजर‌धि डप् लोमा‌होल् डर दविै नक‌वेतन‌भोगी‌एवं‌श्र ी‌राघवेन् द्र ‌दीधि +त‌सुरपवाइजर‌धि डप् लोमा‌होल् डर‌की‌सेवाओ‌ं ममं‌कोई‌समानता नहीं ‌पायी‌गयी।‌अतः‌मा०‌उच् ‌न् यायालय‌के ‌अन् तरि रम‌वि नणरय‌की‌प्र धि त‌के ‌साथ‌श्र ी‌सुनील‌कु मार सेठ,‌द्व ारा‌प्र स् तुत‌वि कये‌गये‌सेवा‌ममं‌रखने‌का‌प्र ाथरना‌पत्र ‌वि द०‌25.01.2010‌पर‌वि कया‌गया‌दावा औधि चत् य‌पूणर‌न‌होने‌के ‌कारण‌वि नरस् त‌वि कया‌जाता‌ह।ै ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌जागे1्व र‌जि सह)‌ ‌‌‌‌अधि धशासी‌अणि भयता‌‌ ‌ वि नमारण ‌ खण् ड-1, ‌लो०वि न०वि व०, ‌ शाहजहाएपुर।

17.5.2010 (emphasisgadded) 7oofo16 From the above quoted correspondences between the Secretary to State Goverenment, the Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer, PWD, Lucknow, it transpires that with the disposal of writ petition on 13th January, 2010 finally by the High Court, the Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 08th February, 2010 asked the Chief Engineer, Establishment, U.P. PWD Lucknow to give a sympathetic consideration to the grievance raised by petitioner and appropriate orders may be passed so that contempt liability as to compliance of the order of the High Court could not be avoided. The Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Lucknow wrote a letter to the Joint Secretary, Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow on 22.2.2010 seeking appropriate direction/guidance in the matter at the level of State Government so that Court's order could be complied with. The Joint Secretary wrote back to the Chief Secretary on 19th March, 2010 asking him to submit report regarding parity between Raghvendra Dixt and Sunil Kumar Seth by appearing before him on any working day with an advance copy to the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D. Shajahanpur take immediate steps. The Executive Engineer accordingly prepared a report and submitted the same to the Joint Secretary on 1.4.2010. It was concluded in the report that the case of the petitioner and that of Raghvendra Dixit were identical and there was no point of difference between the two employees as to their initial appointment and status of service. The Joint Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow again wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Lucknow on 11.5.2010 to appear himself before him on 12.5.2010 at around 11:00 am. and matter was fixed on priority basis. Suddenly on 13th May, 2010 referring to the Government Letter dated 11th May, 2010 Chief Engineer, Public Works Department sent Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Nalkoop Khand on 13th May, 2010 to meet the concerned Secretary of Government of U.P. Lucknow so as to apprise him similarities/difference in the status of the two employees to pass a reasoned order. It is worth noticing here that while the Executive Engineer, Construction Division Nalkoop Khand, P.W.D. Gorakhpur and Law Officer had appeared before Secretary to Government on 8 of 16

12.5.2010 and had apprised him similarities in appointment of opportunity of petitioner and that of Raghvendra Dixit and yet Chief Engineer sent him again to the concerned Secretary within an advance copy of the letter to the Executive Engineer asking him to pass order citing difference in employment and continuance in service between the two employees on the basis of counter affidavit filed in contempt petition and Executive Engineer mechanically passed order on 17.5.2010 rejecting petitioner's claim which is impugned herein this petition. From the above discussion, it is clear that while Chief Engineer P.W.D. Lucknow wanted the State Government to give him guidelines and directives in the matter of claim of the petitioner under his letter dated 22nd February, 2010 and Joint Secretary also directed the Chief Engineer to prepare a report and submit before it and consequently report was submitted by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Shahjahanpur on 1st April, 2010 and Joint Secretary concerned had asked the Chief Engineer to meet him on 12th May, 2010, but the Chief Engineer suddenly took a U-turn and letter to the Joint Secretary that Executive Engineer Officer was being sent to highlight the difference between status of Raghvendra Dixit and present petitioner and surprisingly at the same time without awaiting any direction/ guidelines in writing from the Government the Chief Engineer directed also the Executive Engineer to pass order citing and clarifying the difference in the appointment of two employees disposing of petitioner's representation. The then Chief Executive Engineer without even discussing his own report dated 1st April, 2010 held that petitioner's appointment was different from that Raghvendra Dixit as was averred in the counter affidavit and so also for non availability of work and post and so the claim was not tenable. The sole question that has arisen for consideration of the Court is, as to what was distinguishing feature noticed by the Executive Engineer in the appointment and status of petitioner from that of Raghvendra Dixit to reject the claim of the petitioner and 9 of 16 whether there was sufficient material available with the then Executive Engineer Jageshwar Singh, to ignore his own earlier report dated 1st April, 2010. The other question that arises for consideration is, once the matter was referred to the State Government for its necessary guidelines and the same was still awaited, was the Chief Engineer justified in directing the Executive Engineer to pass final order. In order to appreciate and find answers to the above questions, I proceed to discuss the report of the Executive Engineer dated 1st April, 2010, which is already reproduced above. From the perusal of the aforesaid report, it is clear that both the petitioner and Raghvendra Dixit had worked with the respondent establishment since 1988 . Thus, both were employees since prior to

1.1.1990 but since muster roll was not issued after 29th January, 1992 and Raghvendra Dixit had been regularized in the establishment and petitioner was on fixed pay,, he had no other opinion left but to file petition before this Court. His petition was entertained by this Court and an interim order was passed to continue petitioner in employment and thereafter petition was disposed of finally issuing directions in his favour. The point no. 6 of the report as submitted, clarifies that Raghvendra Dixit was regularized under order of the Public Works Department dated 15th July, 2006 and that of Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Lucknow dated 17.7.2006. Point no. 7 shows that had S.K.Seth, namely petitioner been likewise taken on permanent roll regularizing his services, this would have ensured compliance of the order of the High Court. Point no. 8 shows that seniority report prepared at the division level of Public Works Department, Shahjahanpur established that both petitioner and Raghvendra Dixit were working with the same establishment on a daily-wage since prior to 1.1.1990. Point no. 9 shows that both the employees stood on same footing. 10 of 16 It is, thus clear that there was no difference in the status of initial appointment between petitioner and Raghvendra Dixt. The only difference was that petitioner was discontinued after 1992 whereas Raghvendra Dixit was continued and was also regularized. Petitioner had to file writ petition before this Court and upon filing the same he did obtain a positive direction to be continued in service and the said petition was also subsequently disposed off with the same direction but respondent Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer instead of complying the order of the Court, referred the matter to the State Government to obtain guidance which was not at all required. The first point, therefore, stands in favour of the petitioner that there was no difference between the initial appointments of the two employees inasmuch as the Executive Engineer had not be able to give any reason as to why he took a different view altogether from what he had taken in his earlier report dated 19.3.2010. In so far as other point is concerned, I find that Secretary to the Government even after receiving the report dated 19.3.2010 did not give any guidance. As a matter of fact no such letter was written at the end of the government to reject the representation of the petitioner stating claim of petitioner to be untenable. Under the circumstances while Chief Engineer himself had sought guidance from the Secretary to the government vide his letter dated

22.2.2010, he had no occasion to direct the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 13.5.2010 to pass final order. Letter of Chief Engineer dated 22.2.2010 is reproduced hereunder: " पत्र संख् याः 1024/ 3 व् यग (3)/2010 नि दनांकः 22.02.2010 सेवा में, संयक्तु सचि चव लो०नि न० अनुभाग-7 उ० प्र ० शासन, लखनऊ। 11 of 16 निवषयः- मा० उच्च न्यायालय, लखऊ खण्डपीठ, लखऊ द्वारा रिरट याचिका सं०-1184

(एसएस)/92 सुील कुमार सेठ बाम उ० प्र० सरकार एवं अन्य में पारिरत आदेश निद०

13.01.2010 के क्रम में निदशा निद>श निदये जाे के संबंध में। संदभः- कायालय अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि० निव०, शाहजहाँपुर के पत्र सं०-277/कोट केस निद० 1.02.2010, पत्र सं०-344/कोट केस निद० 8.2.2010 एवं (छाया प्रचित संलग्न)। महोदय, कृपया उपरोक्त निवषयक प्रकरण में उपरोक्त संदर्भिभत पत्रों का अवलोक करे की कृपा करें। अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि०निव०, शाहजहाँपुर के उपरोक्त संदर्भिभत पत्रों द्वारा आख्या प्राप्त हुई है आख्या के अुसार श्री सुील कुमार सेठ, चिडप्लोमा होल्डर को सुपर वाईजर के पद पर दैनिक वेत (मस्टर रोल) पर निद० 1.9.88 से कायालय अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि०निव०, शाहजहाँपुर में रखा गया था। श्री सुील कुमार सेठ को निद० 29.1.92 के बाद मस्टर रोल पर रखे जाे की अुमचित हीं प्रदा की गयी थी, जिजस कारण श्री सुील कुमार सेठ े एक रिरट याचिका सं०-1184 (एसएस)/92 सुील कुमार सेठ बाम उ०प्र० सरकार एवं अन्य मा० उच्च न्यायालय लखऊ खण्डपीठ, लखऊ में योजिजत की थी। उक्त रिरट याचिका में निद०

20.2.92 को अन्तरिरम आदेश पारिरत निकये गये थे। उक्त अन्तरिरम आदेशों के अुपाल कराये जाे हेतु श्री सुील कुमार सेठ े एक अवमाा याचिका सं०-3228/92 सुील कुमार सेठ बाम श्री के०के० जयसवाल एवं अन्य योजिजत की थी जिजसमें श्री डी० सी० गग>श, तत्काली, अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि०निव०, शहजहाँपुर द्वारा प्रचितशपथ पत्र दालिखल निकया गया था। रिरट याचिका सं०-1184 (एसएस)/92 निद० 13.1.2010 अंचितम रूप से निस्तारिरत की गयी है, जिजसमें मा० न्यायालय द्वारा पारिरत निणय की छाया प्रचित संलग्न है तथा निणय का निक्रयाशील भाग निम् हैः- "This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed a detail interim order dated 29.2.1992 and the learned counsel for the parties states that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the interim order. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the above statements of the counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated

20.02.1992 and the opposite parties are directed to consider 12 of 16 the claim of the petitioner when similarly situated Raghuvendra Dikshit has been allowed to work" "13.01.2010" उक्त निक्रयाशील भाग के अुसार श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत, चिडप्लोमा होल्डर जो श्री सुील कुमार सेठ के समकH एवं समा रूप से, कायालय अचिधशासी अभिभयन्ता, निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि०निव०, शाहजहाँपुर में कायरत थे, के अुसार काय करे के आदेश पारिरत निकये गये है। उल्लेखीय है निक श्री राघवेन्द्र दीचिHत दैनिक वेत पर निमाण खण्ड-1, लो०नि०निव०, शाहजहाँपुर में कायरत थे जिजन्हें शास की ीचित के अुसार अवर अभिभयन्ता, जिसनिवल के पद पर नियुनिक्त की जा ुकी है। मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारिरत निणय निद० 13.1.2010 के क्रम में श्री सुील कुमार सेठ, चिडप्लोमा होल्डर को दैनिक वेत सुपर वाईजर के पद पर सेवा में रखे जाे हेतु शास स्तर से निवार करके निदशा निद>श निदये जाे की कृपा करें। अतः आपसे अुरोध है निक उपरोक्त वर्भिणत तथ्यों एवं परिरन्तिस्थचितयों में शास स्तर पर निवार करके मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों के अुपाल हेतु निदशा निद>श देे की कृपा करें। संलग्नकः- उपरोक्ताुसार। (आर० के० गुप्ता) मुख्य अभिभयन्ता (मु०-2) लो०नि०निव०, लखऊ" The Executive Engineer has also not referred to any letter of state government pursuant to which he was passing order on

17.5.2010, instead, what is interfering to notice is that he reproduced the observations made by Chief Engineer in his letter dated 13.5.2010 as reason for rejecting the claim under his order dated 17.5.2010. So, there was absolutely no application of independent mind, nor, he had any guidelines from the concerned Secretary to pass such an order. Thus the second point is also decided in favour of petitioner that in the absence of any guidance of Secretary to the Government, the Chief Engineer was not justified in directing Executive Engineer to pass final order, nor Executive Engineer could have taken different view from his own report. 13 of 16 Besides the above, the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' posts Rules, 2001, were brought into force and as per law a daily wager, if was working on the cut off date i.e. 30.06.1990 counting in service, he would be entitled to regularization as per order of this Court in the case of Ravi Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Others,2009 SCC OnLine All 915. In petitioner's case, I find that he was admittedly working on a dailywage basis as on 30.6.1990 and was only remained, in 1992 and in the event despite High Court's direction if he was not reinstated, respondents were only to be blamed. Now the question is, once this Court held the termination of the petitioner to be bad and directed for reinstatement and subsequently petition was also disposed off with a direction for reinstatement, the question is about payment of wages for the period petitioner was denied reinstatement and wages . The settled principles of law regarding this is that if an employee is wholly illegally terminated he is entitled for reinstatement with wages (Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324). However, admittedly in this case petitioner was to be reinstated only on daily-wage basis when regularization rules had not come, and therefore, the issue was adjustment of an employee against availability of work. This situation had remained fluid and could be crystallized in a valid rights only upon rules for regularization being framed and brought into force in the year 2001. Petitioner's claim for regularization lingered on only for the casual approach of the concerned officers who initially deferred the matter in the garb of obtaining guidance from the Secretary but ultimately rejected the claim without there being any guidance at all. This, therefore, appears to be an approach to somehow linger on matter so as to ensure that petitioner ultimately attained the age of superannuation. The State being a model employer, this conduct of its officials cannot cannot be appreciated. However, wages are paid from the fund collected by the State from tax payers, and therefore, if an employee has not 14 of 16 discharged his duties as daily-wager, he may be held entitled to back wages. In the discretion of the Court, petitioner is held entitled to at-least 75 percent of back-wages in the given facts and circumstances of the case. In this case petitioner ought to have been regularized alongwith one Raghvendra Dixit and respondents have not come to be with detailed statistics as per vacancies available at that point of time. The denial by giving reasons about non availability of work and post, the Court, therefore has found this was not a good approach and conduct of the respondents which is held to be discriminatory. In the given facts and circumstances, therefore, I hold the petitioner entitle to regularisation from the date Raghvendra Dixit was regularized and 75 percent of the salary or arrears of salary which would have accorded from the date regularization of Raghvendra Dixit till petitioner would have attained the age of retirement. Since petitioner has been directed to be reinstated in 1992, petitioner would also be entitled to payment of all retirement benefits including benefit of pension, if it was a pensionable establishment, w.e.f. the date he attained age of superannuation. In view of aforesaid, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Order dated

17.5.2010, annexure 18 to the writ petition is set aside. Petitioner shall be regularized ex post facto under Regularization Rules, 2001 giving notional benefits in terms of pay-scale and pay-grade and accordingly his pension shall be fixed as per old pension scheme as was in existence in the year 2001. He shall be paid regular pension from the date of his retirement and arrears in respect thereof within a period two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 75 percent of the wages for the period from 1992 till petitioner attained age of superannuation as arrears is to to be paid within the same period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order and in the event respondents fail to do so, petitioner would be entitled for interest over and above 15 of 16 outstanding dues @ 12 per cent from the the date of expiry period of two months till actual payment is made. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Sanjeev 16 of 16 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad