Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14432 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19829 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mahesh Prasad Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ali Akhtar Zaidi,Yogendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 02.06.2020, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, wherein the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts are that admittedly the petitioner was appointed as an Akasmik Labour on 06.04.1999. Subsequently, he was made an Akasmik Lipik on 05.06.2000 under the respondent No.2. The petitioner continued to work in various warehouses at Sitapur, Ramkot, Neri Kalan etc. which thereafter went under the State of Uttrakhand. The warehouses at Uttrakhand were under the control of the respondent No.2 itself. Subsequently, the Uttrakhand State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") was formed and the petitioner worked continuously under the said Corporation at Uttrakhand between the period from 09.02.2015 to 04.08.2017. 4. A request was made by the petitioner during his service at Uttrakhand to transfer his services to the respondent No.2 which was acceded to by the Corporation and the petitioner was thereafter transferred under the respondent No.2 and is currently working as an Akasmik Clerk since then. 5. On 12.12.2016, the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or Work Charge or Contract in Government Departments of Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (outside the purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2016") were issued for regularization of casual worker, daily wager, seasonal staff etc. The claim of the petitioner for regularization was not considered which resulted in the petitioner approaching this Court by filing Writ Petition No.32022(S/S) of 2019. The said petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2019, a copy of which is annexure 13 to the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a representation which was directed to be decided by the respondent No.2. 6. In pursuance thereof, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 24.12.2019. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1234 of 2020 which was decided vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2020, a copy of which is annexure 14 to the petition, whereby the order dated 24.12.2019 had been quashed and the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order. 8. In pursuance thereof, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order impugned dated 02.06.2020, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. 9. A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the respondents have placed reliance on the rules to contend that the said rules provide that any person who was appointed on or before 31.12.2001 and has been working as such on the date of promulgation of the Rules i.e. 12.09.2016 would be entitled for being considered for regularization. 10. It has been indicated in the order impugned that as on the fateful day i.e. on the date of promulgation of the Rules - 12.9.2016, the petitioner was working at Uttrakhand, consequently, he would not be covered under the ambit of the Rules, 2016 and as such, the same has been rejected. 11. The aforesaid order has also been supported on the basis of the counter affidavit which has been filed by the respondent No.2. 12. From the arguments as raised by learned counsels for the parties and a perusal of record, it emerges that admittedly the petitioner had been appointed on 06.04.1999 and is still in service under the respondent No.2. The respondents on their own accord had utilized the services of the petitioner despite formation of a new State at various warehouses in Uttrakhand which were being monitored and supervised by the respondent No.2 itself. After formation of the Corporation, the petitioner continued to work and on his request, the Corporation acceded to the request of the petitioner and posted him under the respondent No.2 in August 2017 but for the period from 09.02.2015 to 04.08.2017, as indicated in the order impugned, the services all along of the petitioner were under the respondent No.2. 13. The Rules, 2016 also indicate that any person who was appointed on or before 31.12.2001 and continuing in service in the same capacity on the date of the promulgation of the Rules i.e. 12.09.2016 would be entitled for regularization. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner has been continuing to work right since 01.04.1999 but for the aforesaid period of 09.02.2015 to 04.08.2017 which was rendered at Uttrakhand and earlier too, the petitioner was posted at various warehouses in Uttrakhand which were being supervised by the respondent No.2, as such, it is apparent that a very technical view has been taken by the respondent No.2 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization. The respondents have also failed to consider the continuous service as has been rendered by the petitioner under the State Warehousing Corporation, be it at Uttrakhand also and also the fact that now the petitioner is working under the respondent No.2. 15. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 02.06.2020, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with the Rules, 2016 keeping in view of the discussion as made above. Let such an order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench