HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW) ******************* Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42626 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29424 of 2021 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Singh Somvanshi,Anil Kumar Upadhyay,Diksha Tiwari,Saurabh Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J. (ORAL) 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.3, a copy of which is annexure-17 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. The further prayers are for mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the promotional grade pay of Rs.4200/-, pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with all benefits, as well as to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment. 3. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 03.09.1990 on the post of Driver on daily wages in the Gram Vikas Adhikaran, Collectorate, Pratapgarh. Vide order dated 10.09.1997, a copy of which is annexure-3 to the petition, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Jeep Driver on a temporary basis in the interest of government work. 4. The petitioner claims to be continuing in the same capacity as of date also and thus has rendered almost 28 years of service as on date after his appointment on 10.09.1997. 5. The petitioner staked his claim for being regularized, but the same has been rejected vide the order impugned dated 19.10.2022. 6. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the respondents have referred to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Driver and, having contended that the said Rules only provide for direct recruitment and do not provide for regularization, have consequently rejected his claim for regularization. 7. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the regular recruitment to the post of driver and regularization of an employee are governed by two separate rules, consequently, there is no occasion for the respondents to have referred to the Recruitment Rules for the purpose of regularization of the petitioner and to have rejected the claim. 8. The other argument is that the respondents have granted the promotional pay scale to a junior of the petitioner, namely, Sri Padmakar Prasad Tripathi, vide order dated 06.10.2020, a copy of which is annexure-15 to the petition, although, as per the seniority list of Vaahan Chalak (Driver), a copy of which is annexure-14 to the petition, Sri Padmakar Prasad Tripathi is placed at serial No. 9 viz-a-viz the petitioner whose name finds place at serial No. 8, and consequently, in case Sri Padmakar Prasad Tripathi has been given certain benefits, then even the petitioner is entitled to the same benefits. 9. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit, states that the competent authority has not found the petitioner fit for the purpose of regularization, consequently, his claim has been rejected. 10. From the arguments as raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and a perusal of records, it emerges that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis as a Jeep Driver in the interest of government work vide order dated 10.09.1997 and is still continuing in the same capacity. His claim for regularization has been rejected by placing reliance on the Recruitment Rules without even referring to the Regularization Rules as have been issued from time to time in this regard. 11. Further, as per the gradation list, a junior of the petitioner, namely, Sri Padmakar Prasad Tripathi, has been given the promotional pay scale/promotion vide order dated 06.10.2020, and the petitioner, despite being senior as per the said gradation list, has not been given the same benefit. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order impugned dated 19.10.2022, a copy of which is annexure-17 to the petition, is quashed. 13. The competent authority is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the Regularization Rules, particularly considering the long and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioner since 10.09.1997. 14. The competent authority shall also consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay scale in the grade pay of Rs.4200/-, pay scale of Rs.9300-34800, considering that the petitioner's junior, as per the gradation list, had already been granted the same with effect from 06.10.2020. In case, the petitioner is found entitled for being granted the said promotional pay scale, the same would be granted from the date his junior has been granted the same, provided there is no legal impediment. 15. Let the competent authority comply with the aforesaid order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [Abdul Moin, J.] Order Date :- 24.7.2025 cks/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench